> > Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-request.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S
>
> >Which switches does this help?
>
> Hi Ben, These type of errors are possible in actual Hardware
> implementations of OVS. It is possible that ofproto and n
ependent layers for HW rule
> insertions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-reque
ependent layers for HW rule
> insertions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-reque
ependent layers for HW rule
> insertions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-reque
ependent layers for HW rule
> insertions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-reque
ependent layers for HW rule
> insertions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-reque
independent layers for HW rule
> insertions and application layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
> could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
> Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-
Hi Ben/Aaron/All,
Kindly review the patch and let me know your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though t
Hi Aaron/Ben/All,
If possible, Kindly review the patch and let me know your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time ev
Hi Ben/Aaron/All,
Kindly review the patch and let me know your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though t
Hi Aaron/Ben/All,
Kindly review the patch and let me know your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though t
Hi Ben/Aaron,All,
Kindly review the patch and let me know your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though t
Hi Aaron/Ben/All,
Kindly review the patch and let me know your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though t
Hi Aaron/Ben/All,
If possible, Kindly review the patch and let me know
your views.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Aravind Prasad S
wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time ev
your suggestion for using a integer type for success is
valid but has to be handled as a separate cleanup patch which fixes
this behavior across the entire codebase.
Thanks,
Aravind Prasad S
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Aravind Prasad S writes:
>
> > Cu
layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
Rule-insert errors for bundles are handled too in this pull-request.
Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
Ben/All,
Sorry for re-sending the patch. Handled rule-insertion failures in
bundle-scenario too with this patch. Thought it could be better
if the entire set of changes are provided in a single patch for
review.
Kindly review and let me know your views.
Thanks,
Aravind Prasad S
On Thu, Jul 12, 2
layer to interact with OVS. HW layer
could face any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
Rule-insert errors for bundles are also handled in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
ow Switch
functioning), the possibility of rule-insertion failures could be higher.
Kindly let me know your views.
Thanks,
Aravind Prasad S
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:02 PM Ben Pfaff wrote:
> OK.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 02:58:47PM +0530, Aravind Prasad wrote:
> > Hi Ben/A
). And thanks again for
understanding.
Thanks,
Aravind Prasad S
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:06 AM Aravind Prasad wrote:
>
> Currently, rule_insert() API doesnot have return value. There are some
> possible
> > scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
> static
insertion
may get failed in HW (runtime errors, HW errors and so on).
Hence, we need a way to rollback for rule-insert phase also.
Kindly let me know your views.
Thanks,
Aravind Prasad S
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:45 AM Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:02:08PM +0530, Aravind Pr
-by: Aravind Prasad S
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 4 ++-
ofproto/ofproto-provider.h | 6 ++--
ofproto/ofproto.c | 76 +-
3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
index ad1e8af
handled in this pull-request.
> Will be handled in upcoming pull request.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S
> ---
>> Thanks for working on OVS.
>> As noted, the patch has some submission errors. Please try submitting
>> again with 'git send-email' to eliminat
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 4 ++-
ofproto/ofproto-provider.h | 6 ++--
ofproto/ofproto.c | 76 +-
3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
index ad1e8af..d1678ed
-by: Aravind Prasad S
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 4 ++-
ofproto/ofproto-provider.h | 6 ++--
ofproto/ofproto.c | 76 +-
3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
index ad1e8af
-by: Aravind Prasad S
---
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
index ad1e8af..d1678ed 100644
--- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
+++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
@@ -4443,7 +4443,7 @@ rule_construct(struct rule *rule_)
return 0;
}
-static void
+static enum ofperr
rule_insert(struct
any dynamic issue during rule handling which application could
>
>
> not have predicted/captured in rule-construction phase.
>
>
>
>
>
> This patch is the first step to introduce error reporting for rule
>
>
> insertions/deletions from Client back to OVS.
>
>
to introduce error reporting for rule
insertions/deletions from Client back to OVS.
Signed-off-by: Aravind Prasad S
---
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
index ca4582c..ca485b3 100644
--- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
+++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
@@ -,7 +,7
28 matches
Mail list logo
