Hey,
Thank Ben and Ethan for your comments.
I have taken care of them.
We are now setting all possible faults when we get the heartbeat message.
thanx!
mehak
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > - rmp->recv = true;
> > - if (!fault) {
> > + if (!cfm_fault && !ccm_rdi) {
> > rmp->num_health_ccm++;
> > }
> > + if (!cfm_fault) {
> > + rmp->recv = true;
> > + }
> > + cfm->recv_fault |= cfm_fault;
>
> I have only one additional comment. I think I was a bit wishy washy
> on this so sorry if I said something else earlier. It seems to me
> that we want to increment num_health_ccm whenever rmp->recv is true,
> and not otherwise. That's conceptually simple, if we receive a
> packet, it counts for both cfm_health and cfm_fault calculation.
> Therfore I think we can collapse these two if blocks into one.
>
> Ethan
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
