Hi Ales,
I have one comment below, but it's small enough it can be fixed during
merge.
Acked-by: Mark Michelson <[email protected]>
On 2/8/24 13:17, Ales Musil wrote:
There were some comments left with hardcoded numbers. Even if it
wouldn't break any test table shift/change it would just left the
comment outdated.
Signed-off-by: Ales Musil <[email protected]>
---
tests/ovn-northd.at | 2 +-
tests/ovn.at | 8 ++++----
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/ovn-northd.at b/tests/ovn-northd.at
index 591ad5aad..bb5e1f958 100644
--- a/tests/ovn-northd.at
+++ b/tests/ovn-northd.at
@@ -2150,7 +2150,7 @@ AT_CLEANUP
# This test case tests that when a logical switch has load balancers associated
# (with VIPs configured), the below logical flow is added by ovn-northd.
-# table=1 (ls_out_pre_lb ), priority=100 , match=(ip), action=(reg0[[0]]
= 1; next;)
+# (ls_out_pre_lb ), priority=100 , match=(ip), action=(reg0[[0]] = 1;
next;)
The other changes in this patch are formatted differently than this one.
If this were modeled after the other changes, it would be
# table=ls_out_pr_lb, priority=100...
Should this comment be formatted the same as the others in this change?
# This test case is added for the BZ -
# https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849162
#
diff --git a/tests/ovn.at b/tests/ovn.at
index 2cf335cf4..0af60f893 100644
--- a/tests/ovn.at
+++ b/tests/ovn.at
@@ -18372,8 +18372,8 @@ AT_CHECK([cat 2.packets], [0], [expout])
# There should be total of 9 flows present with conjunction action and 2 flows
# with conj match. Eg.
-# table=44, priority=2001,conj_id=2,metadata=0x1 actions=resubmit(,45)
-# table=44, priority=2001,conj_id=3,metadata=0x1 actions=drop
+# table=ls_out_acl_eval, priority=2001,conj_id=2,metadata=0x1
actions=resubmit(,ls_out_acl_action)
+# table=ls_out_acl_eval, priority=2001,conj_id=3,metadata=0x1 actions=drop
# priority=2001,ip,metadata=0x1,nw_dst=10.0.0.6 actions=conjunction(2,2/2)
# priority=2001,ip,metadata=0x1,nw_dst=10.0.0.4 actions=conjunction(2,2/2)
# priority=2001,ip,metadata=0x1,nw_dst=10.0.0.5 actions=conjunction(2,2/2)
@@ -18413,7 +18413,7 @@ AT_CHECK([cat 2.packets], [0], [])
# properly.
# There should be total of 6 flows present with conjunction action and 1 flow
# with conj match. Eg.
-# table=44, priority=2001,conj_id=3,metadata=0x1 actions=drop
+# table=ls_out_acl_eval, priority=2001,conj_id=3,metadata=0x1 actions=drop
# priority=2001,ip,metadata=0x1,nw_dst=10.0.0.7 actions=conjunction(4,2/2)
# priority=2001,ip,metadata=0x1,nw_dst=10.0.0.9 actions=conjunction(4,2/2)
# priority=2001,ip,metadata=0x1,nw_dst=10.0.0.8 actions=conjunction(4,2/2)
@@ -34296,7 +34296,7 @@ in_port_sec=OFTABLE_CHK_IN_PORT_SEC
in_port_sec_nd=OFTABLE_CHK_IN_PORT_SEC_ND
out_port_sec=OFTABLE_CHK_OUT_PORT_SEC
-# There should be no flows in table OFTABLE_CHK_IN_PORT_SEC, 74 and 75 in hv1 and hv2
+# There should be no flows in table OFTABLE_CHK_IN_PORT_SEC,
OFTABLE_CHK_IN_PORT_SEC_ND and OFTABLE_CHK_OUT_PORT_SEC in hv1 and hv2
> hv1_t${in_port_sec}_flows.expected
> hv1_t${in_port_sec_nd}_flows.expected
> hv1_t${out_port_sec}_flows.expected
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
