On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:43:35PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > With small comments below: > > Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org>
Thanks for the review! I fixed the typos you pointed out. > > + * The controller might change the pipeline configuration concurrently with > > + * steps 2 through 4. For example, it might add or remove OpenFlow flows. > > If > > + * that happens, then the packet will experience a mix of processing from > > the > > + * two configurations, that is, the initial processing (before > > + * NXAST_CONTROLLER2) uses the initial flow table, and the later processing > > + * (after NXT_RESUME) uses the later flow table. > > Maybe it should be noted here that if the layout of data that is > pushed/popped to/from the stack changes then the continuation of the > packet processing might have unpredictable behavior. But maybe this is > true for pipeline “shape” changes in general. I think it's more general, so I just added a sentence: This means that the * controller needs to take care to avoid incompatible pipeline changes while * processing continuations. > > + * A packet-in that includes a continuation always includes the entire > > packet > > + * and is never buffered. > > Does this need to be the case? Does not not contradict the > stateful/stateless comment above? Good point. I changed this to read: * A stateless implementation of continuations may ignore the "controller" * action max_len, always sending the whole packet, because the full packet is * required to continue traversal. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
