On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 04:28:03PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Or,
> >
> > On 1 August 2018 at 13:21, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 1 August 2018 at 11:31, Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks Or, Thanks Ben,
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1 August 2018 at 08:43, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Or Gerlitz <ogerl...@mellanox.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > This series comes to address the case to set (encap) and match
> >> >>> > (decap)
> >> >>> > also the tos and ttl fields of TC based IP tunnels. This happens e.g
> >> >>> > due to inherit setup of tunnel port for tos or due to specific OF
> >> >>> > rule.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The series is rebased over Jianbo's patches for QinQ [1]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> FWIW - note that v2 was actually rebased to the master where Jianbo's
> >> >>> work
> >> >>> is already applied
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I have also reviewed these patches, tested that travis-ci is happy with
> >> >> everything when applied on top of
> >> >> 185b13f228ac ("ovn: Add Meter and Meter_Band tables to the NB and SB
> >> >> databases."), which was the most recent
> >> >> travis-ci-clean commit in the master branch yesterday, and Netronome
> >> >> has
> >> >> performed some testing in the lab.
> >> >>
> >> >> Overall I am happy with these patches and plan to apply them later
> >> >> today
> >> >> after one final run through travis-ci after rebasing onto the current
> >> >> master
> >> >> branch (which is not travis-ci-clean :( [See: "Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2
> >> >> 3/3]
> >> >> ovn-northd: Propagate dynamic addresses to port group address sets."]).
> >>
> >> > Thanks again Or, I have applied this series to master.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> So how is the stable process @ ovs goes? is that documented, where?
> >> e.g b4496fc "lib/tc: Handle ttl for ipv6 too" is a bug fix, should/who I
> >> ask
> >> for stable inclusion?
>
> > The usual procedure, as I understand, is to ask if the maintainer doesn't
> > apply
> > the fix to the desired stable branches. I'll take the above as a request to
> > apply the patch to branch-2.10.
> > Do you want it considered for any other stable branches?
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Yes, please do apply the ttl fix to 2.10 and if possible, to 2.9 as well since
> the bug was introduced there.
>
> Also, it would be good if dfa2ccd "lib/tc: Support matching on ip tos"
> would also go to 2.10.
> I realized that commit 8f283af "netdev-tc-offloads: Implement netdev
> flow put using tc interface"
> has blindly set the tos field @ the mask to zero (see mask->nw_tos = 0
> in netdev_tc_flow_put)
> as if we offloaded that to the TC DP, but we didn't..
Thanks, I backported and pushed:
* to branch-2.9
- b4496fc "lib/tc: Handle ttl for ipv6 too"
* to branch-2.10
- b4496fc "lib/tc: Handle ttl for ipv6 too"
- dfa2ccd "lib/tc: Support matching on ip tos"
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
