On 23 Sep 2022, at 12:35, Ales Musil wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:29 PM Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7 Sep 2022, at 8:54, Ales Musil wrote: >> >>> Through out the code there is the same pattern that occurs >>> in regards to to finish_freezing when ctx->freezing=true or >>> xlate_action_set when ctx->freezing=false. Extract it to common >>> function that is called from those places instead. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ales Musil <[email protected]> >> >> Thanks for this change, it looks good to me. >> >> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> >> >> > Thank you for the review. Actually I think I have made a mistake. > I did not realize that the xlate_action_set() can actually start freezing > again. > So the following diff should be applied to this patch set. If there will be > another version > I'll will apply the diff below: > > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > index e181e3089..c84d6c9d0 100644 > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > @@ -3884,10 +3884,11 @@ xlate_flow_is_protected(const struct xlate_ctx > *ctx, const struct flow *flow, co > static void > xlate_ctx_process_freezing(struct xlate_ctx *ctx) > { > + if (!ctx->freezing) { > + xlate_action_set(ctx); > + } > if (ctx->freezing) { > finish_freezing(ctx); > - } else { > - xlate_action_set(ctx); > } > } > Yes you are right, I totally missed the “else” when reviewing :( //Eelco _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
