Sure, I will update the comment in the code to explain the effect of using: "use_names = 0". Also, would change the comment in the commit back to the original message. Thanks,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 06:40:46PM -0700, Ashish Varma wrote: > > In normal ovs-ofctl commands (e.g. add-flow), ovs-ofctl connects to > > ovs-vswitchd process on “<ovs_rundir()>/<bridge_name>.mgmt” unix socket. > > In an output that contains a port or table, port name or table name can > be > > displayed, instead of their numbers, if the user turns on this feature. > > (by -—names option) Also, this feature is enabled when interacting with > a user > > on console. To fetch the names, ovs-ofctl sends TABLE FEATURE / > > PORT DESCRIPTION request message to ovs-vswitchd process and expects a > reply > > on the connection. > > When ovs-ofctl runs the snoop command, it connects to > > “<ovs_rundir()>/<bridge_name>.snoop” unix socket. ovs-vswitchd process > would > > not reply to the TABLE FEATURE / PORT DESCRIPTION request message on this > > connection. It would only send any open flow message it receives from the > > controller. > > When using port/table name feature with snoop command, the print of open > flow > > message would call ‘tables_to_show()’/‘ports_to_show()’ which in turn > would > > send the request message on the snoop connection. ovs-vswitchd would not > reply > > back on this connection, but instead would keep sending the open flow > messages > > received from controller. ‘table_iterator_next()/port_iterator_next()’ > function > > would loop for ever waiting for response. > > The fix for this is to turn off display of table/port names when running > > snoop command. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ashish Varma <ashishvarma....@gmail.com> > > --- > > v1-v2 > > > > Added more description to the cause of the issue and reason to add the > fix. > > Thanks for the update. > > I think I didn't describe my request on v1 very well. I thought that > the commit message was fine; it described the problem and the solution > well. I was asking for the comment in the code to describe the problem > that it solved. As is, the following comment: > > + use_names = 0; /* don't show port and table names */ > explains the immediate effect, but not why. The "why" is more important > than the immediate effect, because the effect is pretty easy to > understand if the reader looks at the comments on the definition of > "use_names", but the reason is nonobvious. > > Thanks, > > Ben. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
