Makes sense, thanks.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:46:41PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > oops sorry. > > Interfaces aren't deleted that often so I don't think the flush > matters that much from a performance perspective. > > Ethan > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK. > > > > I don't understand your second sentence though. > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:43:11PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> I'm fine with ditching this patch. ?Ifaces aren't deleted that option > >> so the flush is fine. > >> > >> Ethan > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I think that revalidation here is redundant with calling > >> > bridge_flush(). ?If you trace through that function's effects, you can > >> > see that it eventually causes every facet to be revalidated. > >> > > >> > I don't know why we do other explicit revalidation here. ?I guess that > >> > I didn't realize that it wasn't necessary. > >> > > >> > If we can actually get rid of the flush, that would be awesome, but > >> > that would take a more careful audit. > >> > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
