On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:48 PM Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:10 AM <nusid...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > @@ -2195,18 +2191,37 @@ ovn_port_update_sbrec(struct northd_context *ctx,
> > if (op->derived) {
> > const char *redirect_chassis = smap_get(&op->nbrp->options,
> > "redirect-chassis");
> > - if (op->nbrp->n_gateway_chassis && redirect_chassis) {
> > + if (op->nbrp->ha_chassis_group &&
> > + (op->nbrp->n_gateway_chassis || redirect_chassis)) {
> > + char *msg;
> > + if (op->nbrp->n_gateway_chassis && redirect_chassis) {
> > + msg = "gateway_chassis and redirect-chassis";
> > + } else if (op->nbrp->n_gateway_chassis) {
> > + msg = "gateway_chassis";
> > + } else {
> > + msg = "redirect-chassis";
> > + }
> > +
> > static struct vlog_rate_limit rl =
> VLOG_RATE_LIMIT_INIT(1, 1);
> > VLOG_WARN_RL(
> > - &rl, "logical router port %s has both options:"
> > - "redirect-chassis and gateway_chassis
> populated "
> > - "redirect-chassis will be ignored in favour of
> "
> > - "gateway chassis", op->nbrp->name);
> > + &rl, "logical router port %s has "
> > + "ha_chassis_group and %s populated. "
> > + "%s will be ignored in favour of "
> > + "ha_chassis_group", op->nbrp->name, msg, msg);
> > }
>
> Thanks for updating the warning. It is better than before, but still
> one combination is not covered: if user configured redirect-chassis +
> gateway_chassis, without ha_chassis_group, it would still be better to
> warn that "gateway-chassis" is prefered over "redirect-chassis". It
> may be simpler to just check the three conditions with a counter, and
> if counter > 1, just print same message about the preference order.
>
>
Thanks. Done in v6.
> This is very minor problem. So:
>
> Acked-by: Han Zhou <hzh...@ebay.com>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
