On 7/1/26 2:45 PM, Xavier Simonart wrote:
> Hi Ilya
>
> Thanks for the review and the comments
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 7:08 PM Ilya Maximets <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 6/29/26 2:40 PM, Xavier Simonart via dev wrote:
> > Using ofport_request can make the test flaky, as OVS might have
> > already used the requested ofport (typically when ovn created
> > ovn-hv[0-9]-0 ports). In that case, it takes some time (between
> > a few msec to multiple seconds) until the requested ofport is
> > obtained. OVN handles this properly (flows are recalculated), but
> > tests do not handle this properly (e.g. if it happens when comparing
> > I-P and recompute flows).
> >
> > This patch removes all ofport-request, querying the obtained ofport
> > when needed.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure this is the right approach here. Maybe we can add
> some sort of prefix to the numbers instead? e.g. ofport-request=10$i$j
>
> WDYT?
>
> I think we should
> - Remove the ofport-request when not needed (99% of the time).
But why? Is there any harm in having them in case we use the 10x numbering
scheme? There should be no conflicts in that case.
> - Use the schema you propose (ofport-request=10$i$j) as it will be
> easier/safer to handle than a potentially 'complex' sort,
> or guesses on the ofport which OVS will assign.
>
>
> Normally, the ofport-request is used exactly to avoid the flakyness...
>
> > @@ -14338,26 +14249,29 @@ for i in 1 2; do
> > done
> > done
> >
> > -AT_CHECK([as hv1 ovs-ofctl dump-flows br-int |awk
> '/table=OFTABLE_LOG_TO_PHY/ && !/actions=drop/{print substr($8, 16,
> length($8))}' |sort -n], [0], [dnl
> > -10
> > -11
> > +ofport01=$(as hv1 wait_and_get_ofport name=vif01)
> > +ofport11=$(as hv1 wait_and_get_ofport name=vif11)
> > +AT_CHECK_UNQUOTED([as hv1 ovs-ofctl dump-flows br-int |awk
> '/table=OFTABLE_LOG_TO_PHY/ && !/actions=drop/{print substr($8, 16,
> length($8))}' |sort -n], [0], [dnl
> > +$ofport01
> > +$ofport11
> > ])
>
> Here, for example, you're sorting the command output, but there is no
> guarantee that $ofport01 is less than $ofport11. So this test may
> become or still be flaky.
>
> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>
> Thanks
> Xavier
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
