Thanks, merged.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 15:57, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:52:44PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> > It sounds right. ?Have you tested it? >> >> I've done no testing on this patch. It seems fairly low risk to me, >> I'd be inclined to let the system testing we already have cover it. > > OK, that's fine, I was curious more than anything. > >> > The comment just above "if (bond->lacp_negotiated) {" should probably >> > be updated. >> >> Changed to the following: >> >> /* LACP bonds have very loose admissibility restrictions because we can >> * assume the remote switch is aware of the bond and will "do the right >> * thing". However, as a precaution we drop packets on disabled slaves >> * because no correctly implemented partner switch should be sending >> * packets to them. */ > > Great. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
