On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:32:03AM +0300, Roi Dayan wrote: > These are normal and unavoidable, because the vifs > disappear from the kernel before they are removed them from the OVS > database. > > Signed-off-by: Roi Dayan <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Paul Blakey <[email protected]> > --- > lib/netdev-linux.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/netdev-linux.c b/lib/netdev-linux.c > index 98820ed..f5aa9c9 100644 > --- a/lib/netdev-linux.c > +++ b/lib/netdev-linux.c > @@ -5438,8 +5438,12 @@ linux_get_ifindex(const char *netdev_name) > > error = af_inet_ioctl(SIOCGIFINDEX, &ifr); > if (error) { > - VLOG_WARN_RL(&rl, "ioctl(SIOCGIFINDEX) on %s device failed: %s", > - netdev_name, ovs_strerror(error)); > + /* ENODEV probably means that a vif disappeared asynchronously and > + * hasn't been removed from the database yet, so reduce the log level > + * to INFO for that case. */ > + VLOG(error == ENODEV ? VLL_INFO : VLL_ERR, > + "ioctl(SIOCGIFINDEX) on %s device failed: %s", > + netdev_name, ovs_strerror(error)); > return -error; > } > return ifr.ifr_ifindex;
This may be a reasonable change, but why remove the ratelimiting? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
