On 13 April 2016 at 16:12, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:56:50PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> On 12 April 2016 at 21:13, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:38:38AM -0700, William Tu wrote: >> >> Should we expose "truncate" to the ovs-ofctl action list? >> >> >> >> I was thinking about this ovs-ofctl syntax: >> >> actions='output(max_len=64, port=1), output:2' >> >> >> >> then at datapath it translates to actions >> >> truncate(64), output(1), output(2) >> >> >> >> So 64B to port1, and 100B to port2. >> > >> > I think that's OK. >> > >> > Pravin or Joe, do you have an opinion? >> >> Seems fine. >> >> As an aside, it might be worth creating some tests that output to a >> bond port to ensure that case works, in addition to the existing >> cases. > > I don't know what that means; there are no "bond ports" at the OpenFlow > level.
I meant, to configure a bond and use that port as the output, to check for corner cases where the datapath flows break up the output across two flows (recirc + actual output) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev