> On Dec 1, 2016, at 3:44 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 01:09:12PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>> If I may be permitted to nit-pick, the name "modify_forward_counts" took >>> me a bit of thinking to properly understand. Maybe "modify_keep_stats" >>> would be easier for me to understand at first glance. >> >> “stats” include the last used timestamp, which is treated >> independently of the byte and packet counts. How about >> “modify_keep_counts”? > > Sure.
Pushed to master and branch-2.6. Backported the earlier used-timestamp fix to branch-2.5, and squashed in a fix for that patch, since it was the one introducing the reset_counts regression, and also squashed in the new test case to verify behavior on branch-2.5. Branch-2.5 is OK apart from a difference in reported packet size (54 vs. 60 bytes). Since that difference is unrelated, I modified the test case and pushed the result to branch-2.5. Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
