Can it be phrased better? I want the documentation to be clear.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:49:26PM -0700, Ray Li wrote: > I'm sorry my mistake. I definitely misread that paragraph all this time. > > Thanks, > Ray > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:44 PM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 12:16:10PM -0700, Ray Li wrote: > > > In the OVS documentation, it states that the flow_limit field is used for > > > temporary flows, and permanent flows (defined as flows without and > > > idle_timeout or hard_timeout) does not count towards the flow_limit. > > > > > > However in the unit test cases it's cleared that the permanent flows do > > > count towards the limit. If you add permanent flows up to the flow_limit > > > and try to add more, it fails immediately. > > > > > > This is a bug or a documentation issue? Or am I interpreting the > > > documentation wrong? > > > > Permanent flows count against flow_limit, but they cannot be evicted. > > The documentation says: > > > > The eviction process only considers flows that have an idle timeout > > or a hard timeout. That is, eviction never deletes permanent > > flows. (Permanent flows do count against flow_limit.) > > > > If it's not clear, can you suggest some edits or places that it can be > > improved? > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
