Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 06/24/2016 09:03:13 PM:

> From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org>
> Date: 06/24/2016 09:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Restore ovn-controller binding functionality.
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 07:57:40PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 06/24/2016 06:05:16 PM:
> >
> > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org>
> > > Date: 06/24/2016 06:05 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Restore ovn-controller binding
functionality.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:26:24PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 06/24/2016 04:16:14 PM:
> > > > > I applied it before I saw these messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it doesn't do the job, and there's no obvious further fix,
it's
> > just
> > > > > one more revert, no big deal.
> > > >
> > > > No worries - it does pass the new test case, which is good and we
are
> > > > running upstream rechecks to see if it does the trick.
> > >
> > > That is very good.
> > >
> > > > BTW, I acked the new test case, with a proviso, so getting that in
> > would be
> > > > nice, in case this doesn't fix things and we need to revert
everything
> > out.
> > >
> > > I agree that we should still add a test case.
> > >
> >
> > Hopefully a committer can take the ack I put on
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/640404/ remove the echo statements
> > and get it pushed in to meet that need.
>
> Russell is a committer so normal practice would be for him to take the
> ack (or request additional reviews if he prefers) and push it himself.

That's useful to know for future reference...

I think the test can wait for the weekend - the upstream jobs looks more
healthy now ...

Ryan
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to