[ovs-dev] [PATCH v2] FAQ: Add an entry about reconfiguration

[YAMAMOTO Takashi]

> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:18:49PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:24:38AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> >> It seems that the behaviour is not so intuitive.
>> >> cf. https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1346861
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto at valinux.co.jp>
>> > 
>> > I am not sure that I understand the bug report there.  It might be
>> > reporting an actual bug in OVS.
>> > 
>> > The goal of ovs-vswitchd regarding the database is to make sure that
>> > the state of the system is kept up-to-date with whatever is in the
>> > database.  Maybe that bug report is saying, "If I have a port, and
>> > then I del-port/add-port that in a single transaction, ovs-vswitchd
>> > does not actually delete a port and then readd it at the datapath
>> > level."  If it is saying that, then it is correct.  But that could
>> > also happen if you use multiple transactions, because when it is busy
>> > ovs-vswitchd might "miss" some of the intermediate transactions and
>> > just implement the overall effect.
>> 
>> i referred the bug report because it seems that the author of
>> original code mentioned in the bug expected it triggers re-creation
>> of the port.
>> 
>> > 
>> > The reason that two ovs-vsctl calls always deletes and readds a port
>> > is a little different: the first ovs-vsctl waits for its transaction
>> > to take effect before executing.  If you use "--no-wait", then you
>> > just have two bare transactions and won't get the behavior of a
>> > del-port followed by an add-port 100% of the time.
>> 
>> yes, it's my understanding.
>> how about the following?
> 
> The new version is very good.

thank you.
applied with a minor fix.  (remove "a" before "multiple transactions")

YAMAMOTO Takashi

> 
> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev