[ovs-dev] [PATCH 1/4] Add packet recirculation

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:21:23AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:44:02AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:46:29PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> >> >> > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> >> >> > index 47830c1..5129da1 100644
> >> >> > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> >> >> > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm still working on more detailed comments for this.  However, I'm
> >> >> concerned about whether the behavior for revalidation and stats is
> >> >> correct.
> >> >
> >> > I am a little concerned about that too.
> >> > Perhaps Ben could look over it?
> >>
> >> To rephrase, there are problems in both of those areas. Validation in
> >> particular I don't think handles resubmitted facets and I believe that
> >> stats on rules will be the sum of all resubmitted passes.
> >
> > Some questions:
> > By resubmitted do you mean recirculated?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > What is the stats behaviour that you would like?
> 
> A given rule should have byte and packet counts equal to the number of
> times it is matched (i.e. the first time) even if we have to decompose
> it into multiple passes internally.
> 
> > With regards to validation, I assume the area of concern
> > is around facet_revalidate(). I will look into that.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >> Both of these will likely significantly affect the data structures, so
> >> please look into this before we go further.
> >
> > Sure. I was not planning to push (much) further until this series
> > is reviewed properly.
> 
> I'm planning on waiting on further reviews of this file until you've
> had a chance to look into validation and stats since I think that may
> change some of the data structures.

Sure, I assumed as much.

I'll try and prepare and post a version with those issues, and the other
ones you raised elsewhere in your review, in the not to distant future.