On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:53:41PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 03:06:15PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:35:42AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 09:59:57AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:56:02PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > > Jarno, I think that you'd be a good person to review this. Would you > > > > > mind taking a look? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Ben. > > > > > > > > Hi, Ben. > > > > > > > > I still need to find some time to try to reproduce the scenarios this > > > > solves, > > > > but I have at least one test that is fixed by the section replaced by > > > > is_ip_local_multicast. > > > > > > > > I was planning on writing more tests to reproduce the other cases in > > > > order to > > > > send a patch, but here it is as a starting point. > > > > > > I'm very happy to see a start at some tests for multicast snooping. > > > I am unsure whether you intend that I should fold your test into the bug > > > fix patch, or whether you intend to submit it later as a separate patch? > > > > > > > Either way works for me. Can you unfold it as it is now, and I will send > > any new > > tests I come up with later? > > I wasn't sure how to interpret that, so I left the test out for now. > I'll look forward to a later test patch.
Sorry about that. I meant fold, that is, include the test. No problem, I will try to send a more complete one later this week. Thanks. Cascardo. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
