On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 03:02:18PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 11:51:40PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org> > >> --- > >> tests/ofproto.at | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/ofproto.at b/tests/ofproto.at > >> index 9e6acfad653d..c7ea31a77ce9 100644 > >> --- a/tests/ofproto.at > >> +++ b/tests/ofproto.at > >> @@ -3430,7 +3430,7 @@ > >> udp,vlan_tci=0x0000,dl_src=00:26:b9:8c:b0:f9,dl_dst=00:25:83:df:b4:00,nw_src=172 > >> ovs-ofctl -O OpenFlow13 add-flow br0 send_flow_rem,actions=group:1234 > >> ovs-ofctl -O OpenFlow13 --strict del-groups br0 group_id=1234 > >> if test X"$1" = X"OFPRR_DELETE"; then shift; > >> - echo >>expout "OFPT_FLOW_REMOVED (OF1.3): reason=gropu_delete > >> table_id=0" > >> + echo >>expout "OFPT_FLOW_REMOVED (OF1.3): reason=group_delete > >> table_id=0" > > > > Why didn't this cause a test failure? (Is this code never actually > > executed?) > > Yes, there were multiple errors in the test that prevented it from running. > It's easy to correct them, but our support for OpenFlow 1.3 doesn't include > generating a flow removed due to the "group delete". The OpenFlow 1.3 > specification defines such a reason but we seem to break things into > "OpenFlow 1.4+" or "Open Flow 1.0". so we don't generate it for 1.3. > > Do you think we should add support for 1.3 or just remove that bit of test > code?
I think it would be better to support OF1.3. I don't know of a reason that it's particularly hard. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev