thanks. I will submit v4 patch.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Joe Stringer <j...@ovn.org> wrote: > On 21 December 2016 at 10:28, William Tu <u9012...@gmail.com> wrote: >> sorry, I forgot to add priority. Below lower the priority of the NORMAL >> action. >> >> diff --git a/tests/system-traffic.at b/tests/system-traffic.at >> index d70c5c3..321a901 100644 >> --- a/tests/system-traffic.at >> +++ b/tests/system-traffic.at >> @@ -340,6 +340,7 @@ AT_CLEANUP >> AT_SETUP([datapath - clone action]) >> OVS_TRAFFIC_VSWITCHD_START() >> >> +AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl add-flow br0 "priority=1 actions=normal"]) >> ADD_NAMESPACES(at_ns0, at_ns1, at_ns2) >> >> ADD_VETH(p0, at_ns0, br0, "10.1.1.1/24") >> @@ -352,9 +353,9 @@ AT_CHECK([ovs-vsctl -- set interface ovs-p2 >> ofport_request=3]) >> >> dnl verify that the clone(...) won't affect the original packet, so >> ping still works OK >> dnl without 'output' in 'clone()' >> -AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl add-flow br0 >> "in_port=1,ip,actions=clone(mod_dl_dst(50:54:00:00:00:0a),set_field:192.168.3.3->ip_dst), >> output:2"]) >> +AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl add-flow br0 "priority=99 >> in_port=1,ip,actions=clone(mod_dl_dst(50:54:00:00:00:0a),set_field:192.168.3.3->ip_dst), >> output:2"]) >> dnl with 'output' in 'clone()' >> -AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl add-flow br0 >> "in_port=2,ip,actions=clone(mod_dl_dst(50:54:00:00:00:0b),set_field:192.168.4.4->ip_dst, >> output:3), output:1"]) >> +AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl add-flow br0 "priority=99 >> in_port=2,ip,actions=clone(mod_dl_dst(50:54:00:00:00:0b),set_field:192.168.4.4->ip_dst, >> output:3), output:1"]) >> >> NS_CHECK_EXEC([at_ns0], [ping -q -c 3 -i 0.3 -w 2 10.1.1.2 | >> FORMAT_PING], [0], [dnl >> 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms > > I think it's sufficient to set the priority of the "normal" flow to 1, > or just restrict it to ARP. > > A couple of other pieces of feedback on the test: > * It's better if there is one ovs-ofctl call for all flows (look for > flows.txt examples in the test file) > * Similarly for the ofport_request setup, there doesn't need to be > three separate ovs-vsctl calls, the commands can be separated by "--". > (although since you're reliably adding the ports in order, I don't > think it shouldn't be necessary to request the particular port numbers > at all; OVS will allocate the numbers in the order you add them) > * at_ns2 isn't used at all. Please come up with a way to ensure that > the packets going to that port are modified as you would expect. > * You might consider adding a controller action in the clone action, > then using "ovs-ofctl monitor" to observe the traffic > > Please submit a patch the usual way addressing this feedback. > > Thanks, > Joe _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev