Hi, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:33:11AM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote: >> > @Han, I can try rebase the patch if you want but that was >> > basically renaming the Address_Set table and from Ben's >> > comment, it may be better to keep the name. Not sure, >> > however, how we can proceed to address Lucas' points in >> > this thread. >> >> I wouldn't rename the table. It sounds like the priority should be to >> add support for sets of port names. I thought that there was already a >> patch for that to be rebased, but maybe I misunderstood. > > I feel it is better to add a new table for port group explicitly, and the > column type can be a set of weak reference to Logical_Switch_Port. > The benefits are: > - Better data integrity: deleting a lport automatically deletes from the > port group > - No confusion about the type of records in a single table > - Existing Address_Set mechanism will continue to be supported without any > change > - Furthermore, the race condition issue brought up by Lucas can be solved by > supporting port-group in IP address match condition in ovn-controller, so > that all addresses in the lports are used just like how AddressSet is used > today. And there is no need for Neutron networking-ovn to use AddressSet any > more. Since addresses are deduced from lports, the ordering of > deleting/adding doesn't matter any more. > > How does this sound? >
+1 from me, I quite like it! It would solve both problems raised in this thread and won't break any existing code. (Also, thanks for all the previous suggestions @Ben, @Han and @Daniel. This thread has been really helpful!) Cheers, Lucas _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
