On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 08:09:24PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:41:23AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > @@ -1788,26 +1815,21 @@ ofproto_delete_flow(struct ofproto *ofproto,
> > > struct classifier *cls = &ofproto->tables[0].cls;
> > > struct rule *rule;
> > >
> > > + /* First do a cheap check whether the rule we're looking for has
> > > already
> > > + * been deleted. If so, then we're done. */
> > > ovs_rwlock_rdlock(&cls->rwlock);
> > > rule = rule_from_cls_rule(classifier_find_match_exactly(cls, target,
> > > priority));
> > > ovs_rwlock_unlock(&cls->rwlock);
> > > if (!rule) {
> > > - /* No such rule -> success. */
> > > - return true;
> > > - } else if (rule->pending) {
> > > - /* An operation on the rule is already pending -> failure.
> > > - * Caller must retry later if it's important. */
> > > - return false;
> > > - } else {
> > > - /* Initiate deletion -> success. */
> > > - ovs_rwlock_wrlock(&cls->rwlock);
> > > - ofproto_rule_delete(ofproto, cls, rule);
> > > - ovs_rwlock_unlock(&cls->rwlock);
> > > -
> > > return true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* Fall back to a executing a full flow mod. We can't optimize this
> > > at all
> > > + * because we didn't take enough locks above to ensure that the flow
> > > table
> > > + * didn't already change beneath us. */
> > > + return simple_flow_mod(ofproto, target, priority, NULL, 0,
> > > + OFPFC_DELETE_STRICT) != OFPROTO_POSTPONE;
> > > }
> >
> > this seems wrong to me. ofproto_delete_flow is used to remove hidden rules.
> > the new code ends up to use collect_rules_strict which skips hidden rules.
>
> Good point, thank you.
I sent out a fix:
http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2013-September/032100.html
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
