On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:40:55AM +0200, Matthias May wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matthias May
> ---
> vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema | 9 +++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema b/vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema
> index 19b49daf1..7ebcd0d6a 100644
> --- a/vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema
> +++ b/vswitchd/vswitch.ovsschema
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> {"name": "Open_vSwitch",
> - "version": "7.15.0",
> - "cksum": "544856471 23228",
> + "version": "7.16.0",
> + "cksum": "2597117342 23427",
> "tables": {
> "Open_vSwitch": {
> "columns": {
> @@ -160,6 +160,11 @@
> "enum": ["set", ["trunk", "access", "native-tagged",
> "native-untagged", "dot1q-tunnel"]]},
> "min": 0, "max": 1}},
> + "port_group": {
> + "type": {"key": {"type": "integer",
> + "minInteger": 1,
> + "maxInteger": 65279},
> + "min": 0, "max": 1}},
By itself, this fails to build with the following error because the
documentation is not part of the patch. Our normal practice is to
document a feature in the same patch as the feature:
../ovsdb/ovsdb-doc: table Port has undocumented column port_group
I am not sure whether this feature will be widely enough used that a new
column is warranted. If only a few users or a few ports are likely to
use a feature, then we are usually inclined to add a new key-value pair
to other_config rather than to add a new column. Please consider which
is the better solution in this case.
Thanks,
Ben.
___
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
