On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:36:25AM +0300, Roi Dayan wrote: > > > On 07/08/2017 20:05, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:00:31AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >>On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:32:02AM +0300, Roi Dayan wrote: > >>>From: Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com> > >>> > >>>Always implement get_ifindex without checking if offload is > >>>enabled or not as this should not be related. From ovs-dpctl > >>>we cannot tell if offload is enabled or not as other_config is > >>>not being read. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com> > >>>Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <r...@mellanox.com> > >> > >>Applied to master and branch-2.8, thanks! > > > >Sorry, I had to revert this because it caused several unit test > >failures: 770 781 783 787 788 791 2189 2378. > > > > This is because of the warnings from get_ifindex which resolved in > the second patch but was missing the ratelimiting you mentioned. > I submitted V2 of it to add back the ratelimiting > "netdev-linux: Reduce log level for ENODEV errors getting ifindex"
In that case shouldn't the patch order be reversed to avoid the (temporary) regression Ben pointed out? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
