On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:18:31AM -0800, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > As written, flow_hash_5tuple() will incorporate ICMP type and code > > > > > into the hash (because those are stored into tp_src and tp_dst). > Is > > > > > that desirable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm okay with that. I think counting ICMP type and code in hash > will not > > > > cause > > > > particular handler receiving unfairly more ICMP related upcalls. (Is > > > this > > > > what you > > > > concerned?) > > > > > > I am not concerned about fairness in this case. I am wondering whether > > > one should ensure ordered delivery of ICMP with different type and > > > code. My guess is that it does not matter, so let's leave this as-is > > > unless anyone speaks up. > > > > This will require the datapath to distinguish such special packets > > and send them to the same PID. > > I guess I wasn't clear? I'm saying that you can keep it the way you > had it. But it would be simple to cause them to be ordered: in the > case where nw_proto == IPPROTO_ICMP, don't include tp_src or tp_dst in > the hash.
You are clear. I just wanted to comment that if we don't want reorder, I should add a check in datapath/userspace (like to one you gave "nw_proto == IPPROTO_ICMP"). I'll put the full sentence next time. I'll leave it as-is and include a comment in commit log.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
