The github robot didn't seem to take into consideration `base-commit` and `prerequisite-patch-id` tags. However now that the prerequisite series is (mostly) merge into main, perhaps just re-triggering CI could be enough.
Recheck-request: github-robot On Tue, 2025-01-21 at 11:44 +0100, Martin Kalcok wrote: > A recent commit added condition to "route_table_parse__" function > that > causes it to throw an error when parsing route without "nexthop > information" (either RTA_OIF, RTA_GATEWAY, RTA_VIA or RTA_MULTIPATH). > While > this requirement is reasonable for regular routes, there are some > route types > that don't need nexthop. We intend to use one of these types, > (RTN_BLACKHOLE)[0], in OVN for route advertising . > > This change does not enforce the above-mentioned condition for those > special > route types that don't require "nexthop information". > > v3: > * Fix typo in arguments for the "route_type_needs_nexthop" function > > v2: > * Ensure that the list of nexthops is cleared if the route does not > have > them. > * The function for determining whether a route requires nexthop now > takes > route_type (unsigned char) as an argument directly. Previously it > took a pointer to rtmsg struct. > * The patch is rebased on top of the in-flight patch series by > Frode[1] > * Fixed typos. > > [0] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2025-January/419383.html > [1] > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/ > > CC: Frode Nordahl <[email protected]> > Fixes: 91fc51106cfe ("route-table: Support parsing multipath > routes.") > Signed-off-by: Martin Kalcok <[email protected]> > --- > lib/route-table.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/route-table.c b/lib/route-table.c > index 6dfb364a4..ecc7fd7e5 100644 > --- a/lib/route-table.c > +++ b/lib/route-table.c > @@ -226,6 +226,23 @@ route_table_reset(void) > } > } > > +/* Returns true if the given route requires nexthop information > (output > + * interface, nexthop IP, ...). Returns false for special route > types > + * that don't need this information. */ > +static bool > +route_type_needs_nexthop(unsigned char rtmsg_type) { > + switch (rtmsg_type) { > + case RTN_BLACKHOLE: > + case RTN_THROW: > + case RTN_UNREACHABLE: > + case RTN_PROHIBIT: > + return false; > + default: > + return true; > + } > +} > + > + > static int > route_table_parse__(struct ofpbuf *buf, size_t ofs, > const struct nlmsghdr *nlmsg, > @@ -450,13 +467,20 @@ route_table_parse__(struct ofpbuf *buf, size_t > ofs, > ofpbuf_uninit(&mp_buf); > } > } > - if (!attrs[RTA_OIF] && !attrs[RTA_GATEWAY] > - && !attrs[RTA_VIA] && !attrs[RTA_MULTIPATH]) { > + if (route_type_needs_nexthop(rtm->rtm_type) && > !attrs[RTA_OIF] > + && !attrs[RTA_GATEWAY] && !attrs[RTA_VIA] > + && !attrs[RTA_MULTIPATH]) { > VLOG_DBG_RL(&rl, "route message needs an RTA_OIF, > RTA_GATEWAY, " > "RTA_VIA or RTA_MULTIPATH attribute"); > goto error_out; > } > /* Add any additional RTA attribute processing before > RTA_MULTIPATH. */ > + > + /* Ensure that the change->rd->nexthops list is cleared in > case that > + * the route does not need a next hop. */ > + if (!route_type_needs_nexthop(rtm->rtm_type)) { > + route_data_destroy_nexthops__(&change->rd); > + } > } else { > VLOG_DBG_RL(&rl, "received unparseable rtnetlink route > message"); > goto error_out; > > base-commit: caed64d1685409d1f9b53b35621a08ad6588200c > prerequisite-patch-id: 9d606dcf57f9213291028029f2a71a43f346ce1e > prerequisite-patch-id: b61606e7f32fede1bd34248957f67d72040be326 > prerequisite-patch-id: 907ead49b46ccf4b2e81e9f49f535788e592348b _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
