On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 04:20:16PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:16:43PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> > The following is a little worrisome because EINVAL is very generic and
> > can indicate many kinds of errors. If we always suppress logging
> > EINVAL, then we could miss important problems. I am surprised that we
> > do not use EEXIST or another error that is less overloaded:
>
> Agreed. Andy's going to change the kernel to return EEXIST instead.
> Are you okay with the patch with EINVAL references replaced with
> EEXIST?
The other thing that worries me is that you mentioned that you saw
multiple installations of a single subfacet in a single batch. If so,
that worries me because it seems like this could happen:
handle_flow_miss_with_facet() queues up subfacet sf for
installation into fast path, and sets sf->path to
SF_FAST_PATH.
handle_flow_miss_with_facet() queues up subfacet sf for
installation into fast path, again, and sets sf->path to
SF_FAST_PATH.
...
The first installation succeeds. OK.
The second installation fails (EINVAL, EEXIST, whatever), so
we set sf->path back to SF_NOT_INSTALLED. But it was
installed by the first "put".
But I don't understand how we'd get multiple installations to begin
with, since the first handle_flow_miss_with_facet() call would set
sf->path to SF_FAST_PATH and the second one would see that sf->path
was already SF_FAST_PATH and not try to install it again. Do you have
any idea what was going on there?
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
