[ovs-dev] [PATCH v2] ovn: Make it possible for CMS to detect when the OVN system is up-to-date.

[Ben Pfaff]

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 02:55:25PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote on 07/19/2016 01:40:29 PM:
> 
> > From: Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM at IBMUS
> > Cc: dev at openvswitch.org
> > Date: 07/19/2016 01:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2] ovn: Make it possible for CMS to
> > detect when the OVN system is up-to-date.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:29:34PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> > > "dev" <dev-bounces at openvswitch.org> wrote on 07/18/2016 01:30:10 PM:
> > >
> > > > From: Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
> > > > To: dev at openvswitch.org
> > > > Cc: Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
> > > > Date: 07/18/2016 01:30 PM
> > > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2] ovn: Make it possible for CMS to
> > > > detect when the OVN system is up-to-date.
> > > > Sent by: "dev" <dev-bounces at openvswitch.org>
> > > >
> > > > Until now, there has been no reliable for the CMS (or ovn-nbctl, or
> > > > anything else) to detect when changes made to the northbound
> > > configuration
> > > > have been passed through to the southbound database or to the
> > > hypervisors.
> > > > This commit adds this feature to the system, by adding sequence
> numbers
> > > > to the northbound and southbound databases and adding code in
> ovn-nbctl,
> > > > ovn-northd, and ovn-controller to keep those sequence numbers
> up-to-date.
> > > >
> > > > The biggest user-visible change from this commit is new a new option
> > > > --wait to ovn-nbctl.  With --wait=sb, ovn-nbctl now waits for
> ovn-northd
> > > > to update the southbound database; with --wait=hv, it waits for the
> > > > changes to make their way to Open vSwitch on every hypervisor.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Hey Ben, while I like this patch, it is going to put incremental
> > > processing in merge conflict (again) if it lands first. I've put
> together
> > > a rebased version of this patch that sits on top of the remaining
> pieces
> > > of incremental processing and passes both compile and unit tests.
> > > Am I breaking process if I submit it as V3 with an updated commit
> > > message and an acked by even though I rebased it?
> >
> > You're worrying too much.  I'll rebase my patch as necessary.  I do it
> > routinely.
> 
> Ok, can you please send a rebase?  I went to take a look at it today and
> it doesn't apply cleanly anymore...

OK, sent:
        https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/652126/