On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:24:38AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > It seems that the behaviour is not so intuitive. > cf. https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1346861 > > Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp>
I am not sure that I understand the bug report there. It might be reporting an actual bug in OVS. The goal of ovs-vswitchd regarding the database is to make sure that the state of the system is kept up-to-date with whatever is in the database. Maybe that bug report is saying, "If I have a port, and then I del-port/add-port that in a single transaction, ovs-vswitchd does not actually delete a port and then readd it at the datapath level." If it is saying that, then it is correct. But that could also happen if you use multiple transactions, because when it is busy ovs-vswitchd might "miss" some of the intermediate transactions and just implement the overall effect. The reason that two ovs-vsctl calls always deletes and readds a port is a little different: the first ovs-vsctl waits for its transaction to take effect before executing. If you use "--no-wait", then you just have two bare transactions and won't get the behavior of a del-port followed by an add-port 100% of the time. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
