On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 05:43:26PM -0400, Vasu Dasari wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:58 PM Flavio Leitner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:02:07PM -0400, Vasu Dasari wrote: > > > +{ > > > + struct tnl_neigh_entry *neigh; > > > + bool changed = false; > > > + > > > + ovs_mutex_lock(&mutex); > > > + CMAP_FOR_EACH(neigh, cmap_node, &table) { > > > + if (nullable_string_is_equal(neigh->br_name, br_name)) { > > > + tnl_neigh_delete(neigh); > > > + changed = true; > > > > Do you expect to match on additional entries? Otherwise it > > could bail out here. > > > > > Say there are two or more neighbors on the port or on bridge, then by > bailing out we would be missing others. So, will leave it there.
You're right. [...] > > However, as I mentioned in the discussion, the tnl IP address could > > be on a device that doesn't belong to OVS at all. For example: [...] > > The tnl endpoint must have a valid route, so I suggest to hook the > > tnl_neigh_cache_flush into route-table.c which receives a notification > > when a route changes. If a route is deleted, we should flush the > > device's tnl cache. Doing so, would cover both userspace and kernel > > datapath for OVS and non-OVS devices. > > > > > I see what you are saying. Let me play with code a bit and resubmit patch. OK, looking forward to it! Thanks Vasu, fbl _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
