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