On 7/12/21 10:11 AM, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > On 7/9/21 6:11 PM, Han Zhou wrote: >>> To avoid this potentially expensive table walk, we use the load_balancer >>> uuids stored in the datapath record itself (it's probably best to see >>> those as hints I guess). >>> >> Thanks for the explain. What you described is indeed a dependency between >> lflow and sb_load_balancer because in lflow's compute/change handlers >> sb_load_balancer data is required. (otherwise we would not need to call >> sbrec_load_balancer_get_for_uuid(). >> >> However, since this dependency is already captured in the I-P, it is just >> easy for this use case. We should simply use >> sbrec_load_balancer_table_get_for_uuid() instead, which takes struct >> sbrec_load_balancer_table* as argument and we already have it in the >> lflow_ctx_in.lb_table as the input to lflow engine node. >> > > You're right, it's simpler like this, thanks for pointing out the > sbrec_*table_get_for_uuid() variant. > > I sent a v2: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/list/?series=253029 >
Sorry for the noise; Ilya mentioned offline that I forgot to update the schema version number, I sent a v3 taking care of that: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/list/?series=253094 Regards, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
