[ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofproto: Return error codes for Rule insertions/deletions

[Aravind Prasad]

 > Currently, rule_insert() and rule_delete() ofproto provider APIs do not
>
>
> have return values. There are some possible scenarios where rule
insertions
>
> and deletions can fail at run-time even though the static checks during
>
> rule_construct() had passed previously.
>
>
>
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions and deletions:
>
>
>
> **) Rule insertions can fail dynamically in Hybrid mode (both Openflow and
>
>
> Normal switch functioning coexist) where the CAM space could get suddenly
>
>
> filled up by Normal switch functioning and Openflow gets devoid of
>
>
> available space.
>
>
>
> **) Some deployments could have separate independent layers for HW rule
>
>
> insertions/deletions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
>
>
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
>
>
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
>
>
>
>
>
> This patch is the first step to introduce error reporting for rule
>
>
> insertions/deletions from Client back to OVS.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S <raja.avi at gmail.com>

>>Thanks for working to improve OVS.

>>Please don't triple-space your commit message.

>>This commit doesn't actually do anything to handle failures.  It only
reports them.  To be acceptable in OVS, it would have to actually handle
them.

>>(Also, for error reporting purposes, it's not acceptable to just print a
number.)

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the review. Since the changes to delete the erroneous flow could
be a lot more, thought , it would be better to push the changes
incrementally.
Anyways, thanks again and will get back with the necessary changes.

Thanks,
S. Aravind Prasad

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 06:14:38PM +0530, Aravind Prasad wrote:
> > Currently, rule_insert() and rule_delete() ofproto provider APIs do not
> >
> >
> > have return values. There are some possible scenarios where rule
> insertions
> >
> > and deletions can fail at run-time even though the static checks during
> >
> > rule_construct() had passed previously.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions and deletions:
> >
> >
> >
> > **) Rule insertions can fail dynamically in Hybrid mode (both Openflow
> and
> >
> >
> > Normal switch functioning coexist) where the CAM space could get suddenly
> >
> >
> > filled up by Normal switch functioning and Openflow gets devoid of
> >
> >
> > available space.
> >
> >
> >
> > **) Some deployments could have separate independent layers for HW rule
> >
> >
> > insertions/deletions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> >
> >
> > could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> >
> >
> > not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This patch is the first step to introduce error reporting for rule
> >
> >
> > insertions/deletions from Client back to OVS.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S <raja.avi at gmail.com>
>
> Thanks for working to improve OVS.
>
> Please don't triple-space your commit message.
>
> This commit doesn't actually do anything to handle failures.  It only
> reports them.  To be acceptable in OVS, it would have to actually handle
> them.
>
> (Also, for error reporting purposes, it's not acceptable to just print a
> number.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben.
>