On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:51 PM Mark Michelson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 comment outdated.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? > We can follow the same "convention" as for the others. > > # 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 > > Thanks, Ales -- Ales Musil Senior Software Engineer - OVN Core Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com> [email protected] <https://red.ht/sig> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
