On Fri, 2024-08-09 at 11:28 +0200, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > On Friday, August 9, 2024, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't mind merging them, but while we are at the topic. Are there > > benefits in processing performance in "fewer, more complex rules" > > vs "more, less complex rules"? Or is it just to improve > > readability? > > > > > > In this case I don’t expect we’ll have a lot of ports with redirect > enabled so, from my perspective, it’s just readability (I was ok with > the 2 flow version too). From an openflow perspective there’s no > difference.
Thanks, I think I'll have to keep the current 2-line implementation in and add this into the list of future improvements. @Vladislav I do appreciate the review and the feedback, and I don't want to look like I'm just ignoring it, but due to the time pressure (freeze today) and this change resulting in tests/docs change (which always takes me way more than I expect) i don't think I'll fit it in. It doesn't look like it but the overhead adds up. Martin. > > Thanks, > Dumitru > > > Martin. > > > > On Fri, 2024-08-09 at 11:08 +0200, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > > > On Friday, August 9, 2024, Vladislav Odintsov <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Don't we want to merge these two conditions into one logical > > > > > flow? > > > > > > > > > > E.g.: > > > > > > > > > > "(ip%d.dst == %s && (%s.dst == %d && %s.src == %d)" > > > > > > > > Sorry, there is typo. It should be: > > > > > > > > "(ip%d.dst == %s && (%s.dst == %d || %s.src == %d)" > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > This will make one logical flow per LRP IP per protocol > > > > > instead of two. > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t test this but I think that looks ok. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dumitru > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
