[ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofproto: Return error codes for Rule insertions
Aravind.Sridharan at dell.com
Aravind.Sridharan at dell.com
Tue Apr 23 20:05:09 UTC 2019
Hi All,
Sorry for resending the mail, the link appears wrongly in previous mail (due to mingling of 'dot' with github link).
Correct GitHub pull request link - https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/pull/282
Kindly review.
Thanks,
Aravind Prasad S
-----Original Message-----
From: Sridharan, Aravind
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 1:26 AM
To: 'Ben Pfaff'; ovs-dev at openvswitch.org
Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofproto: Return error codes for Rule insertions
Hi All,
I have raised the pull request in Github - https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/pull/282. Kindly review and let me know your views.
Hi Ben,
Also, I raised the similar patch sometime back and you had requested for the vendor name. Had to get approval from my Organization. Hence, requesting your review for the changes now.
> Hi Ben,
>
> By "which" switches, you mean to ask to which vendor switches ?
> In general, this patch will be very useful for all Switches which
> implement OVS for their HW implementations, specifically, will be
> useful for Switches which had implemented ofproto and netdev provider
> APIs for their respective HW/NPU and Kernel. And, in case of HW, the
> possibility of dynamic rule insertion failures are usually higher.
> Static checks during rule-construct phase are not sufficient and
> predicting future failure predictions in construct phase may not be
> possible.
> Hence, this patch will make OVS more flexible to handle such rule
> insertion failures.
> So, basically, you're not willing to name any switches. I'm tired of
>the vendor secrecy game. They get to see all of our code but they're
>never willing even to name themselves.
> Sorry, I'm not going to willingly take this patch.
Thanks,
S. Aravind Prasad
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 02:40:55PM +0000, Aravind.Sridharan at dell.com wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are
> some possible scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time
> even though the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
> previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) 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 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.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-request.
> It looks like you're not having much luck with posting patches. If you > haven't already tried "git send-email", please try that; otherwise, you > can always submit a pull request on Github.
Thanks,
Ben.
More information about the dev
mailing list