[ovs-dev] [ovs-dev, v16, 1/5] Change encaps_run to work incrementally

Ben Pfaff blp at ovn.org
Thu May 19 15:32:53 UTC 2016


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:02:08AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote on 05/17/2016 10:13:19 PM:
> 
> > From: Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM at IBMUS
> > Cc: dev at openvswitch.org
> > Date: 05/17/2016 10:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v16,1/5] Change encaps_run to work incrementally
> >
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:26:54AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> > > As a side effect, tunnel context is persisted.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com>
> >
> > Thanks for updating this.
> 
> and thanks for looking - sorry for the delayed reply (I've been
> doing OVN training the past couple of days)
> 
> > In a couple of places, this uses hmap_first_with_hash() to find an
> > element in a hash table.  ovn-controller uses this method in some
> > special cases where the hash value is known to be unique; for example, I
> > think that it's used for a hash table where the "hash" is the assigned
> > logical datapath ID, which is a unique 32-bit (maybe shorter? I don't
> > recall at the moment) number.  But that trick doesn't work when the hash
> > value is really a hash.  For example, it can't be used in this code
> > where the hash is taken from a UUID, because there might be multiple
> > UUIDs with the same hash value.  It's necessary, instead, to iterate
> > through the items that have the desired hash value, with
> > HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH, and then compare the item's full key instead of
> > just the hash.
> 
> Ugh - I thought I had changed that, but when I couple this with your
> comments below, I'm thinking I've confused myself as to what patches
> I have and haven't pushed
> 
> > In the process_full_encaps case, I don't see what removes tunnels that
> > are no longer needed.
> >
> > This has some TODOs and commented-out code in it, so I suspect that it's
> > not really ready for full review?
> 
> As I implied above, those shouldn't be there, so now I'm suspicious if I've
> lost track of a ball that I've been juggling... Since I've got to rebase
> the rest of the patches anyway, adding this one to the list won't add
> that much additional effort...

Yeah, it did seem weird, since going into it I expected that this patch
was ready.  I'll look forward to the next version.



More information about the dev mailing list