On 8/3/21 9:24 AM, Eli Britstein wrote:
> 
> On 8/2/2021 10:58 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/21 10:14 AM, Eli Britstein wrote:
>>> This patch-set improves/fixes offloads transitions behavior.
>>>
>>> Patch #1 avoids flushing PMD offloads unnecessarily.
>>> Patch #2 fixes a flow modifications bug.
>>> Patch #3 fixes a race condition with flow modifications.
>>> Patch #3 improves debuggability of flow modifications.
>>>
>>> v2-v1:
>>> - Rebase.
>>> v3-v2:
>>> - Added patch #2 for fixes another flow modification scenario.
>>> - Changed log to a separated function.
>>>
>>> GitHub Actions:
>>> v1: https://github.com/elibritstein/OVS/actions/runs/769805954
>>>      - This run has encountered some internal GitHub problems.
>>>      - A previous good run, with the same code, only changed commit
>>>        messages since:
>>>      https://github.com/elibritstein/OVS/actions/runs/766660787
>>> v2: https://github.com/elibritstein/OVS/actions/runs/1023045302
>>> v3: https://github.com/elibritstein/OVS/actions/runs/1066584199
>>>
>>> Eli Britstein (4):
>>>    dpif-netdev: Do not flush PMD offloads on reload
>>>    dpif-netdev: Fix flow modification after failure
>>>    dpif-netdev: Fix offloads of modified flows
>>>    dpif-netdev: Log flow modification in debug level
>>>
>>>   lib/dpif-netdev.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>>>
>> Thanks!
>> I renamed the function in the patch #4 from 'dump_*' to 'log_*'
>> to avoid confusion with flow dump functions and applied the
>> patch set.
>>
>> I added Ack from David to patch #1 since it's the same as in v2.
>> Patches #2 and #3 backported down to 2.13.
> Thanks. Indeed I forgot to add it.
>>
>> Technically, I think, we can consider patch #1 as a bug fix too
>> and backport it down to 2.15.  Let me know if that's needed.
> 
> This patch depends on the flush series that was merged in 2.15, but didn't 
> have Fixes tags, though it fixed a memory leak.
> 
> I think here it is not severe as a memory leak, only failure in offloads, but 
> similar to the severity of patches #2,#3.
> 
> Though it's not a clear cut, if #2,#3 are backported, #1 can be too.

OK.  Applied to branches 2.16 and 2.15.

> 
>>
>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to