Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 03/22/2016 05:05:22 PM: > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Date: 03/22/2016 05:05 PM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v9,05/10] Persist local_datapaths > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:06:20PM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > > From: RYAN D. MOATS <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > > > Persist local_datapaths across runs so that a change can be used > > as a trigger to reset incremental flow processing. > > > > Signed-off-by: RYAN D. MOATS <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > One thing I'm trying to understand in this series is the reliance on > seqnos that come from the IDL. I'm surprised that they're used so > much. I would have guessed that the typical use of change tracking > would be something like this: > > For each row that changed, > If it's new, create a new object to track it; > otherwise, it's modified or deleted, so look up an existing > object based on the row's uuid and update or delete it as > appropriate > > But instead logic seems to look at these seqnos a lot. What is the > principle that you're following? > > In this patch, I suspect that 'local_datapaths' should be static. >
I chose to use IDLs instead of the row's uuid because the insert seqno acts as pretty much as a uuid and I was sure that I could trust them even when a row is deleted. Unfortunately, that led to a bunch of "magic" that I really didn't like. I'll go back and double check to make sure that a row uuid's remain usable after a row is deleted - if they do, then I'm all in favor of using uuids as it should simplify a bunch of things... Ryan (regXboi) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
