You don't need to resend the patch. Whoever merges this can fix the
problem when they merge it.
On 4/6/22 02:26, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
Regarding the code style, should I resend patch or this can be fixed when the
patch gets applied?
regards,
Vladislav Odintsov
On 5 Apr 2022, at 23:03, Mark Michelson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
The subject claims this is patch 1/2, but I don't see patch 2/2 on patchwork or
on the mailing list.
Provisionally, I'm acking this patch
Acked-by: Mark Michelson <[email protected]>
but if there's a part 2, I'd prefer that it gets reviewed before this gets
merged.
Also, I have one minor thing below.
On 4/1/22 04:16, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vladislav Odintsov <[email protected]>
---
controller-vtep/binding.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/controller-vtep/binding.c b/controller-vtep/binding.c
index 01d5a16d2..7c7bea90a 100644
--- a/controller-vtep/binding.c
+++ b/controller-vtep/binding.c
@@ -109,12 +109,11 @@ update_pb_chassis(const struct sbrec_port_binding
*port_binding_rec,
port_binding_rec->chassis->name,
chassis_rec->name);
}
-
sbrec_port_binding_set_chassis(port_binding_rec, chassis_rec);
- if (port_binding_rec->n_up) {
- bool up = true;
- sbrec_port_binding_set_up(port_binding_rec, &up, 1);
- }
+ }
+ else if (port_binding_rec->n_up) {
This is a coding guidelines violation. The else should be on the same line as
the closing curly brace:
} else if (port_binding_rec->n_up) {
This is minor enough not to prevent me from acking the patch. But this should
be fixed before merging.
+ bool up = true;
+ sbrec_port_binding_set_up(port_binding_rec, &up, 1);
}
}
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
