Thanks for testing, I'll review this and check out the dummy test case. Jarno
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Daniele Venturino <daniele.ventur...@m3s.it> > wrote: > > Hi. > We tested the RSTP implementation against the IXIA IxANVL validation software. > This allowed us to fix some small bugs, and the implementation now passes > such tests with success! > Please find attached the patch series. > > > It appears that patches 12 and 17 break the "RSTP dummy" test, while all other > tests succeed. We also did some tests on some physical machines and the > behaviour > seems to be ok with patches 12 and 17 applied. > > The "RSTP dummy" test succeeds with the following modifications: > > diff --git a/lib/rstp.c b/lib/rstp.c > index 144f2ba..6803bb2 100644 > --- a/lib/rstp.c > +++ b/lib/rstp.c > @@ -324,10 +324,9 @@ rstp_set_bridge_address__(struct rstp *rstp, > rstp_identifier bridge_address) > RSTP_ID_ARGS(bridge_address)); > if (rstp->address != bridge_address) { > rstp->address = bridge_address; > - rstp->bridge_identifier &= 0xffff000000000000ULL; > - rstp->bridge_identifier |= bridge_address; > - set_bridge_priority__(rstp); > } > + rstp->bridge_identifier = rstp->address; > + set_bridge_priority__(rstp); > } > > /* Sets the bridge address. */ > @@ -378,10 +377,10 @@ rstp_set_bridge_priority__(struct rstp *rstp, int > new_priority) > VLOG_DBG("%s: set bridge priority to %d", rstp->name, new_priority); > > rstp->priority = new_priority; > - rstp->bridge_identifier &= 0x0000ffffffffffffULL; > - rstp->bridge_identifier |= (uint64_t)new_priority << 48; > - set_bridge_priority__(rstp); > } > + rstp->bridge_identifier &= 0x0000ffffffffffffULL; > + rstp->bridge_identifier |= (uint64_t)rstp->priority << 48; > + set_bridge_priority__(rstp); > } > > but this breaks some IXIA validation tests. > We're still not sure why this test fails. Jarno, could you take a look? > > Best regards, > Daniele > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev