> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amber, Kumar <kumar.am...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 12:27 PM
> To: Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; d...@openvswitch.org; Van Haaren,
> Harry
> <harry.van.haa...@intel.com>
> Cc: i.maxim...@ovn.org
> Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [v4 02/12] dpif-netdev: Add auto validation function
> for
> miniflow extract
<snip lots of patch>
> > > #endif /* DPIF_NETDEV_AVX512_EXTRACT */ diff --git
> > > a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c index 567ebd952..4f4ab2790
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> > > +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> > > @@ -1181,8 +1181,8 @@ dpif_miniflow_extract_impl_set(struct
> > > unixctl_conn *conn, int argc,
> > > struct ds reply = DS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
> > > ds_put_format(&reply, "Miniflow implementation set to %s.\n",
> > mfex_name);
> > > const char *reply_str = ds_cstr(&reply);
> > > - unixctl_command_reply(conn, reply_str);
> > > VLOG_INFO("%s", reply_str);
> > > + unixctl_command_reply(conn, reply_str);
> >
> > Is there a reason for swapping the order above?
> >
>
> This looks more logical .
Hi All,
Actually yes there's a good reason, by logging internally in Vswitchd first,
and then sending the reply to the user, the order of prints in the logs is
easier to understand.
This is particularly true when e.g. MFEX enabling logs can come *after* the PMD
log
print of study having chosen a specific MFEX impl.
(pseudo) Example of bad logging behaviour:
<ovs startup stuff>
PMD: MFEX study chose profile "eth_ip_udp" (128/128 hits)
DPIF: MFEX optimized functionality set to "study"
(pseudo) Example of good logging behaviour (with switched log/conn_reply):
<ovs startup stuff>
DPIF: MFEX optimized functionality set to "study"
PMD: MFEX study chose profile "eth_ip_udp" (128/128 hits)
Hope the helps clarify the change! -Harry
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
