Personally I think it's better to just fail. This will force someone
configuring a bond to notice the problem and deal with it. I'm
worried about people deploying active-backup bond's in production when
they really intend slb bonds.
That said, it's mostly an aesthetic issue and I don't feel
particularly strongly about it.
Ethan
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 21:17, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:22:07PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> This seems fine, I would go slightly further though.
>>
>>
>> > + ? ?if (s->balance == BM_SLB && port->bridge->cfg->n_flood_vlans) {
>> > + ? ? ? ?VLOG_WARN("port %s: SLB bonds are incompatible with flood_vlans, "
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"please use another bond type or disable flood_vlans",
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?port->name);
>> > + ? ?}
>>
>> I would change this warning to an error, and actually fail to create
>> the port in this case. I'm afraid people are going to ignore the
>> warning in the log. If you disagree, go ahead and merge.
>
> What do you think of forcing the bond to active-backup mode? Then it
> will still work, at least.
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
