On 19 Oct 2022, at 20:35, [email protected] wrote:
<SNIP> >>>> diff --git a/utilities/usdt-scripts/revalidate_monitor.py >>>> b/utilities/usdt-scripts/revalidate_monitor.py>> >>>> new file mode 100755 >>>> index 000000000..1b3880af9 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/utilities/usdt-scripts/revalidate_monitor.py >> >> We might have a name collision with my patch set. I called my script >> reval_monitor.py, as I thought revalidate_monitor was too long ;) >> >> Maybe we can keep mine as reval_monitor.py as it monitors the revalidate >> process, and we can call your’s flow_reval_monitor.py as it monitors flow >> revalidation (I know it’s a long name :). What do you think? > > flow_reval_monitor.py is the same number of characters as > revalidate_monitor.py > I'm fine with that name length, but if we wanted to shorten it, > flow_monitor.py > is one option, although that doesn't feel quite right, since it's not > monitoring the flows except when they're upcalled and revalidated. Yes I agree, the flow_reval_monitor.py name is better at describing its purpose (and there is always command completion ;). Thanks for taking care of the comments I snipped out, looking forward to your v5. Cheers, Eelco _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
