On 22.01.2026 17:23, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > On 1/22/26 2:04 PM, Rukomoinikova Aleksandra wrote: >> On 21.01.2026 17:41, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >>> Внимание: ВНЕШНИЙ отправитель! >>> >>> >>> Будьте осторожны с вложениями и ссылками. >>> >>> >>> On 12/19/25 10:48 AM, Alexandra Rukomoinikova wrote: >>>> 1) Added tables for further implementation logic of service monitors for >>>> logical switch ports: >>>> >>>> New table: >>>> - Logical_Switch_Port_Health_Check: Health check configuration >>>> for logical switch port. >>>> >>>> Modified tables: >>>> - Logical_Switch_Port: Add 'health_checks' column referencing >>>> health checks configuration. >>>> >>>> 2) Added commands to create, delete, and describe health checks for >>>> logical switch ports. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandra Rukomoinikova <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>> Hi Alexandra, >>> >>> I started reviewing this series but before doing that I want to double >>> check the use case. >>> >>> Is your plan to use these to check the availability of >>> Logical_Switch_Ports as backends of NB.Load_Balancer? >>> >>> If so, how do you plan to add that mapping? I guess it would be a new >>> feature in 26.09. >>> >>> Or is your goal to just expose the LSPHC.status to the CMS and then let >>> the CMS update the list of backends of the LB? >>> >>> In any case we probably should: >>> - update the documentation expanding on the use case more >>> - update the commit log of this patch (and maybe the others too) >>> - add a TODO.rst item for any follow up work we might be doing in 26.09. >>> >>> I have some more comments on the code changes themselves but I'll send >>> those replies separately when I'm done going through the code. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dumitru >>> >> Hi, we would like to use this functionality so that CMS can know about >> the availability of the virtual machine, that is, yes, it is assumed >> that the only client of this functionality is CMS - I can indicate this >> in the documentation. Which option would you prefer? Could I correct >> all your comments by tomorrow and have it included in the release, or >> should I leave it all for 26.09 ? >> > Hi Alexandra, > > I think if it's properly documented that the CMS monitors the health > check status the series still qualifies for 26.03. So we can try to > include it there. > > In my review I didn't spot any huge blockers until now. > > Regards, > Dumitru >
Hi Dumitru and Mark, I read comments you and Mark sent me, and I don't think we should include this patch series in the release. I won't have time to properly fix everything that needed fixing today, and I don't want to break anything again or cut corners =) Thanks for the review, and I'm sorry you had to waste time on this now, but I think it would be better if I calmly improve everything. Thanks again! > -- regards, Alexandra. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
