On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 3:34 PM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/25/26 3:28 PM, Ales Musil wrote:
> >>> +void
> >>> +evpn_mac_binding_sync_run(
> >>> + struct ovsdb_idl_txn *ovnsb_idl_txn,
> >>> + struct ovsdb_idl_index *sbrec_mac_binding_by_lport_ip,
> >>> + const struct sbrec_mac_binding_table *mb_table,
> >>> + const struct hmap *local_datapaths,
> >>> + const struct hmap *evpn_arps,
> >>> + struct mac_cache_data *mac_cache_data,
> >>> + struct ed_type_evpn_mac_binding_sync *data,
> >>> + struct evpn_mb_sync_waker *waker)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (!ovnsb_idl_txn) {
> >>> + data->sb_changes_pending = true;
> >> Isn't this a bit too conservative? We might not have any pending
> >> changes, right? Should we delay setting data->sb_changes_pending until
> >> we actually need to update the SB somewhere later in this function?
> >>
> > So I had a design that actually deffered the sb_changed_pending
> > for later, but it turned out to be a mess. So I have decided to make
> > it easier. Let me know if I should invest time in trying to come up
> > with better solution.
>
> I guess that's probably fine.
>
> Let's leave it as is.
>
> Regards,
> Dumitru
>
>
Can I add your ack to this patch then after addressing the other
minor comments?
Regards,
Ales
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
