On 12/4/2021 2:18 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
On 12/3/21 16:57, Paolo Valerio wrote:
Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes:
On 11/11/21 19:06, Paolo Valerio wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Mi via dev <[email protected]> writes:
OVS_DP_F_UNALIGNED is already set, no need to set again. If restarting ovs,
dp is already created. So dpif_netlink_dp_transact() will return EEXIST.
No need to probe again.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mi <[email protected]>
---
lib/dpif-netlink.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/dpif-netlink.c b/lib/dpif-netlink.c
index 5f4b60c5a..baa8e4d2a 100644
--- a/lib/dpif-netlink.c
+++ b/lib/dpif-netlink.c
@@ -411,11 +411,10 @@ dpif_netlink_open(const struct dpif_class *class
OVS_UNUSED, const char *name,
* dispatching, we fall back to the per-vport dispatch mode.
*/
dp_request.user_features &= ~OVS_DP_F_UNSUPPORTED;
- dp_request.user_features |= OVS_DP_F_UNALIGNED;
dp_request.user_features &= ~OVS_DP_F_VPORT_PIDS;
dp_request.user_features |= OVS_DP_F_DISPATCH_UPCALL_PER_CPU;
error = dpif_netlink_dp_transact(&dp_request, &dp, &buf);
- if (error) {
+ if (error == EOPNOTSUPP) {
dp_request.user_features &= ~OVS_DP_F_DISPATCH_UPCALL_PER_CPU;
dp_request.user_features |= OVS_DP_F_VPORT_PIDS;
error = dpif_netlink_dp_transact(&dp_request, &dp, &buf);
The patch LGTM, there's a remark about this function, though.
Paolo, should I consider this as 'Acked-by' ?
yes, sorry, I must have forgotten to add it.
Acked-by: Paolo Valerio <[email protected]>
Thanks, Chris and Paolo! Applied.
Thank you, Ilya and Paolo.
-Chris
Bets regards, Ilya Maximets.
Before [1] the datapath did not check what user_features were supported,
for this reason [2] was needed to avoid the case in which we set
OVS_DP_F_DISPATCH_UPCALL_PER_CPU on old kernels without supporting it.
I wonder what happens if, in case of kernel without [1] (prior to
5.4), we try to create the datapath during a restart?
My impression is that we'll keep transacting receiving EEXIST, and only
after opening (without trying to create it) we set the things as we
intend.
This seems to be confirmed by:
ovs-vswitchd 834 [000] 146.180045: probe:ovs_dp_cmd_new__return:
(ffffffffc075d290 <- ffffffffacba1a5a) retval=0xffffffef
ovs-vswitchd 834 [000] 146.180111: probe:ovs_dp_cmd_new__return:
(ffffffffc075d290 <- ffffffffacba1a5a) retval=0xffffffef
ovs-vswitchd 834 [000] 146.180212: probe:ovs_dp_cmd_new__return:
(ffffffffc075d290 <- ffffffffacba1a5a) retval=0xffffffef
Note that I didn't really test it against an old kernel, but I just
removed the user_features validation from the kernel code.
If confirmed, this is not a problem per se (there should not be a case
where this can become a functional problem), it's more about knowing that
there's this further chance to clean things up.
[1] 95a7233c452a ("net: openvswitch: Set OvS recirc_id from tc chain index")
[2] b841e3cd4a28 ("dpif-netlink: Fix feature negotiation for older kernels.")
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
