Sounds good. Thanks for the explanation.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:16:51PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> This patch looks good to me. > > Thanks. > >> Out of curiosity, why not just create the bridge port record manually >> ourselves when it doesn't exist? > > That could be a reasonable solution too, or at least part of one. The > main reason I didn't choose to do it that way is that, currently, > ovs-vswitchd only writes to columns that are reserved for it to write > to. ovs-vswitchd never creates or deletes records and never > overwrites columns that are not reserved for it. Creating a record > and adding it to a bridge would be a change in this policy. That's > not necessarily bad, but I didn't feel sufficiently motivated by this > corner case to change it. > > Another (fairly minor) reason is that a change to the database > actually *disappears* as soon as you call ovsdb_idl_txn_commit().[*] > So we'd still have to deal with the missing record at least until the > next time we poll the database. > > [*] That's because "commit" just ships the transaction off to the > database. It doesn't ensure that the updated state is exactly the > set of changes that the database will make--it might abort the > transaction, for example--and so the updates have to be rolled > back until the database notifies us of the actual new state. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
