Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote on 05/19/2016 10:32:53 AM: > From: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 05/19/2016 10:33 AM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v16,1/5] Change encaps_run to work incrementally > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:02:08AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote on 05/17/2016 10:13:19 PM: > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: 05/17/2016 10:14 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v16,1/5] Change encaps_run to work incrementally > > > > > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > > As a side effect, tunnel context is persisted. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <[email protected]> > > > > > > Thanks for updating this. > > > > and thanks for looking - sorry for the delayed reply (I've been > > doing OVN training the past couple of days) > > > > > In a couple of places, this uses hmap_first_with_hash() to find an > > > element in a hash table. ovn-controller uses this method in some > > > special cases where the hash value is known to be unique; for example, I > > > think that it's used for a hash table where the "hash" is the assigned > > > logical datapath ID, which is a unique 32-bit (maybe shorter? I don't > > > recall at the moment) number. But that trick doesn't work when the hash > > > value is really a hash. For example, it can't be used in this code > > > where the hash is taken from a UUID, because there might be multiple > > > UUIDs with the same hash value. It's necessary, instead, to iterate > > > through the items that have the desired hash value, with > > > HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH, and then compare the item's full key instead of > > > just the hash. > > > > Ugh - I thought I had changed that, but when I couple this with your > > comments below, I'm thinking I've confused myself as to what patches > > I have and haven't pushed > > > > > In the process_full_encaps case, I don't see what removes tunnels that > > > are no longer needed. > > > > > > This has some TODOs and commented-out code in it, so I suspect that it's > > > not really ready for full review? > > > > As I implied above, those shouldn't be there, so now I'm suspicious if I've > > lost track of a ball that I've been juggling... Since I've got to rebase > > the rest of the patches anyway, adding this one to the list won't add > > that much additional effort... > > Yeah, it did seem weird, since going into it I expected that this patch > was ready. I'll look forward to the next version. >
I've found the right code for encaps.c and re-looking at the tunnel update path, I'm really dubious about it being correct - I'm out this afternoon (CDT) for a HS graduation, but if I post just the first patch as an RFC how soon would it capture eyeballs? I ask because if it will be a while, then I'll just work through the rest of the patches first. Ryan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
