On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Justin Pettit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 17/07/17 11:10, Numan Siddique wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Eelco Chaudron <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> Assuming we can get the patch in before the next release, there > >> should be no need to revert back. But if its common practice for > >> OVS to do it right away I have no issue with it. > >> > >> > >> For tripleo, we need OVS 2.7.1 for OVN DB HA support, but we can't take v2.7.1 for this issue. I think we should atleast revert the patch for 2.7 branch and have a new version 2.7.2. > >> > > If we are having a 2.7.2 release specially for this it makes sense to revert it. > > > > In addition can you test/apply the updated patch, https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-July/335560.html as I was hitting the issue with the persistant ports setup, it would be good to see your case is also fixed. > > Han and Numan, it sounds like Eelco's original patch fixed an issue, but it's introducing problems for more common workloads. Can you try it on the tip of "branch-2.7" and see if it resolves the issues you're seeing? I'd suggest if it doesn't fix the problems, we revert Eelco's orignal patch and release 2.7.2. If it does, and people think it's reasonably safe, we can release 2.7.2 with the patches. > > Let me know if anyone has a different view on how we should proceed. > > Thanks, > > --Justin > >
I tested on branch-2.7 with patch https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-July/335560.html. I didn't see the "File exists" problem any more :) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
