"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 07/18/2016 11:20:59 AM:
> From: Chandra Sekhar Vejendla/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS > To: Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> > Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > Date: 07/18/2016 11:21 AM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH, v2] ovn: Allow SNAT traffic destined > to router ip > Sent by: "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> > > Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> wrote on 07/18/2016 08:03:52 AM: > > > From: Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> > > To: Chandra Sekhar Vejendla/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > Date: 07/18/2016 08:04 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH, v2] ovn: Allow SNAT traffic destined > > to router ip > > > > On 18 July 2016 at 05:22, Chandra S Vejendla <csvej...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > When router ip is used as SNAT IP, traffic destined to router > > ip should not be dropped > > > > Thank you for the fix. You will need to add your Signed-off-by. Can > > you also add a "Fixes:" tag in commit message. Since this is a > > regression, I wonder whether we should add a simple unit test that > > looks at the generated logical flows to make sure that there is no > > "drop" for the SNAT IP address. > > > > I'll send out patch v3 with 'Signed-off-by' & 'Fixes' tag. > Yes, i agree that we should have a unit test for this. If its fine with you > I would like to cover the unit test case in a different patch. I'm sorry, but *I* want to see the test in the same patch. We've already had cases where regressions were created because of lacking tests, and I'd like to avoid it, especially in cases like this where we are fixing a regression that could happen again. Ryan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
