> > Hi Ilya, > > > > Please find my replies inline. > > Hi all, this patch seems to have hit a wall, I can see there is a v6 that > came after > this that has been acked: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/20220329101724.3148 > 572-1-kumar.am...@intel.com/ > > I would like to see this work go in, but think we should finish the > discussion on > this tread before proceeding. My thoughts below on the discussion.
HI All, Just a ping on this thread, there doesn't seem to be any response since last week, the technical issues seem to have been resolved in the Acked- v6 . Unless there are any further discussion I was going to merge this tomorrow? Thanks Ian > > <snip> > > > > > I have already made a POC based on the Discussion above and will put > > > > that patch in few days with the 'dp_extra_info' showing DPCLS as well. > > > > As for this Patch is also important as currently the get-command > > > > doesn’t > > > show much info and hence this improvement will make things clear for the > > > user through the dpcl-get-command. > > > > Hence request this usability feature to be merged. > > > > I will follow this patch with the 'dp_extra_info' showing DPCLS > > > > functions > > > next to give absolute clarity to the user. > > > > > > Why the 'subtable-lookup-prio-get' should return anything except for the > > > priority of subtable lookup implementations? > > > > > > > We think the DPIF, MFEX and DPCLS commands should all provide the same > > workflow to the user. > > By having "subtable-lookup-prio-get" return the list (including "use count" > item) > > allows the get/set > > pair of commands to both modify and check the results of setting the DPCLS > > implementations. > > This patch makes the output and workflow the same as DPIF and MFEX. > > > > I agree with the above sentiment. After testing for the past few days with the > various DPIF/MEF functions it seems more natural to me to have the required > info here in the dpcls command. > > I tried the approach in the POC posted by Amber to provide the info in the > flow > dump and while this approach could also have the stats info, I felt there was > a > disconnect in the sense why would this info not be accessible via a dpcls > command? > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/20220411131331.5978 > 25-1-kumar.am...@intel.com/ > > In fairness to the folks from both RH and Intel here who have worked on this > over the past few months, reviewing the previous revisions, I can see the > reasoning for providing this info in this dpcls command and would agree with > the > approach so would like to see this approach go ahead. > > > > That doesn't seem straightforward. Especially if we'll have that > > > information > > > reported in a different place already without need for extra > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > The "dump-flows" approach provides information between the flow and the > > subtable implementaiton > > which is also useful, however it does not provide the above workflow like > > DPIF > > and MFEX. We are willing > > to also accept the "dump-flows" approach, but the "subtable lookup prio get" > > patch/workflow is required. > > +1, we could also include this approach as a separate merge if that makes > things > more amenable, it might mean some duplication but it would be a fair > compromise for end user intuitiveness. > > Thanks > Ian > > > > > Regards > > Amber > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Amber > > > >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
