> Hi Ilya, > > Please find my replies inline. Hi all, this patch seems to have hit a wall, I can see there is a v6 that came after this that has been acked: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/
I would like to see this work go in, but think we should finish the discussion on this tread before proceeding. My thoughts below on the discussion. <snip> > > > I have already made a POC based on the Discussion above and will put > > > that patch in few days with the 'dp_extra_info' showing DPCLS as well. > > > As for this Patch is also important as currently the get-command doesn’t > > show much info and hence this improvement will make things clear for the > > user through the dpcl-get-command. > > > Hence request this usability feature to be merged. > > > I will follow this patch with the 'dp_extra_info' showing DPCLS functions > > next to give absolute clarity to the user. > > > > Why the 'subtable-lookup-prio-get' should return anything except for the > > priority of subtable lookup implementations? > > > > We think the DPIF, MFEX and DPCLS commands should all provide the same > workflow to the user. > By having "subtable-lookup-prio-get" return the list (including "use count" > item) > allows the get/set > pair of commands to both modify and check the results of setting the DPCLS > implementations. > This patch makes the output and workflow the same as DPIF and MFEX. > I agree with the above sentiment. After testing for the past few days with the various DPIF/MEF functions it seems more natural to me to have the required info here in the dpcls command. I tried the approach in the POC posted by Amber to provide the info in the flow dump and while this approach could also have the stats info, I felt there was a disconnect in the sense why would this info not be accessible via a dpcls command? http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/ In fairness to the folks from both RH and Intel here who have worked on this over the past few months, reviewing the previous revisions, I can see the reasoning for providing this info in this dpcls command and would agree with the approach so would like to see this approach go ahead. > > That doesn't seem straightforward. Especially if we'll have that > > information > > reported in a different place already without need for extra infrastructure. > > > > The "dump-flows" approach provides information between the flow and the > subtable implementaiton > which is also useful, however it does not provide the above workflow like DPIF > and MFEX. We are willing > to also accept the "dump-flows" approach, but the "subtable lookup prio get" > patch/workflow is required. +1, we could also include this approach as a separate merge if that makes things more amenable, it might mean some duplication but it would be a fair compromise for end user intuitiveness. Thanks Ian > > Regards > Amber > > > > > > > Regards > > > Amber > > >> Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
