> On Apr 28, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
>> The integration bridge will be needed by other components soon, so make
>> it part of the general ovn-controller context.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <[email protected]>
>
> This solves a problem I had too, and I like your solution better.
> Thanks.
Great.
> It seems a little harsh to have the daemon die if the integration bridge
> disappears. I would expect the daemon to wait for it to reappear. If
> that's difficult now, that's fine with me, if you agree that it's not
> the desirable long-term behavior (and add a comment?).
I agree. I think we're going to need to restructure that while loop anyway. I
have it on my to-do list, so I just added a comment that it would be better not
to do that.
> This change isn't really necessary, since the compiler will initialize
> everything in the struct to null or zero. There are already several
> members that we don't initialize explicitly, I assumed that
> .chassis_name was just there to suppress compiler warnings:
>
> @@ -111,11 +141,11 @@ try_again:
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> struct unixctl_server *unixctl;
> - struct controller_ctx ctx = { .chassis_name = NULL };
> + struct controller_ctx ctx = { .chassis_name = NULL, .br_int_name =
> NULL };
> bool exiting;
> int retval;
>
> ovs_cmdl_proctitle_init(argc, argv);
> set_program_name(argv[0]);
Yeah, I know. Since we haven't historically used these initializers, I wasn't
sure what style we wanted to use. I went ahead and removed it.
--Justin
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
