Thanks for the fix. I'm just going on whether the code looks reasonable here, since I haven't studied the actual protocol.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 02:59:06PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: > --- > Sorry for all the spam. This was a fairly silly mistake that should have been > in the last patch. My bad . . . > --- > vswitchd/bridge.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/vswitchd/bridge.c b/vswitchd/bridge.c > index b369ced..9c614fb 100644 > --- a/vswitchd/bridge.c > +++ b/vswitchd/bridge.c > @@ -3130,7 +3130,7 @@ lacp_process_packet(const struct ofpbuf *packet, struct > iface *iface) > } > > iface->lacp_status |= LACP_CURRENT; > - iface->lacp_status &= ~LACP_EXPIRED; > + iface->lacp_status &= ~(LACP_EXPIRED | LACP_DEFAULTED); > iface->lacp_rx = time_msec() + LACP_SLOW_TIME_RX; > > iface->lacp_actor.state = iface_get_lacp_state(iface); > -- > 1.7.4 > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
