thanks, pushed, sorry bout the spam. Ethan
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
