> > Any response to these queries? I’m uncomfortable TBH with this feature > going in to 2.18 unless these are addressed/resolved. From an Intel > perspective we’re more than happy to test and review but there are > genuine issues to be discussed I feel below before merge. > > I tend to agree here. The patch set doesn't seem to be ready. > It has a few major issues like broken upgrades/live migration > and doesn't seem to be tested enough to enable features by > default. > > I'd suggest to not rush it, but take a closer look at what is > going on, write good unit tests for the "untested" software > fallback, which is a major concern. Since lots of refactoring > and changes are happening at the same time, it's better to > give it time to soak before enabling by default. It's fine > to enable if it gives better performance for everyone, but > we clearly don't have enough time to assess that. > > I'm generally also not very comfortable with changing historical > names like 'p' and 'b' in functions just for the sake of renaming. > And I agree with Amber that some cover letter would be nice to > have. We should also have performance test results somewhere > to be sure that we're not introducing regressions. Performance > tests for the software fallback are also necessary. > > To be clear, I didn't really review the patch set, but a quick > glance over patches and discussions doesn't give me any > confidence at this point. > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. >
+1 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
