On 9/15/20 9:20 PM, Flavio Leitner wrote: > The datapath flow limit is calculated by revalidators so > log the value as well. > > Signed-off-by: Flavio Leitner <[email protected]> > --- > ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c > index 72a5b4d73..05a912f57 100644 > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c > @@ -1283,7 +1283,8 @@ should_install_flow(struct udpif *udpif, struct upcall > *upcall) > atomic_read_relaxed(&udpif->flow_limit, &flow_limit); > if (udpif_get_n_flows(udpif) >= flow_limit) { > COVERAGE_INC(upcall_flow_limit_hit); > - VLOG_WARN_RL(&rl, "upcall: datapath flow limit reached"); > + VLOG_WARN_RL(&rl, "upcall: datapath flow limit reached (max: %u)",
I think that we're not printing this value just because it's dynamically adjustable by revalidators. From that perspective, I don't think that 'max' is a good word to describe the value, because users might think that they have a direct control over it and might think that it's the value set by the 'flow_limit' configuration knob. 'current dynamic limit' or something similar might be better choice, but I'm not sure. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
