On 08/08/2017 11:04, Simon Horman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:36:25AM +0300, Roi Dayan wrote:


On 07/08/2017 20:05, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:00:31AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:32:02AM +0300, Roi Dayan wrote:
From: Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com>

Always implement get_ifindex without checking if offload is
enabled or not as this should not be related. From ovs-dpctl
we cannot tell if offload is enabled or not as other_config is
not being read.

Signed-off-by: Paul Blakey <pa...@mellanox.com>
Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <r...@mellanox.com>

Applied to master and branch-2.8, thanks!

Sorry, I had to revert this because it caused several unit test
failures: 770 781 783 787 788 791 2189 2378.


This is because of the warnings from get_ifindex which resolved in
the second patch but was missing the ratelimiting you mentioned.
I submitted V2 of it to add back the ratelimiting
"netdev-linux: Reduce log level for ENODEV errors getting ifindex"

In that case shouldn't the patch order be reversed to avoid
the (temporary) regression Ben pointed out?


right.
should i post V3 for changing the order or is it something that
can be done when merged?
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to