On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:44:25AM +, aravind.sridha...@dell.com 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 the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
> previously.
>
Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are
some possible scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time
even though the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
, Aravind
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 1:26 AM
To: 'Ben Pfaff'; ovs-dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ofproto: Return error codes for Rule insertions
Hi All,
I have raised the pull request in Github -
https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/pull/282. Kindly review and let me know
Hi All,
I have raised the pull request in Github -
https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/pull/282. Kindly review and let me know your
views.
Hi Ben,
Also, I raised the similar patch sometime back and you had requested for the
vendor name. Had to get approval from my Organization. Hence,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 02:40:55PM +, aravind.sridha...@dell.com 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 the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
> previously.
>
Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are
some possible scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time
even though the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
Description
---
Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are
some possible scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time
even though the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**)
Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are
some possible scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time
even though the static checks during rule_construct() had passed
previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 07:29:06AM +0530, Aravind Prasad 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 the
> static
> > > checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> > Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are
some possible
> > scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
static
> > checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> > Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> > **) Rule
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 09:22:06AM +0530, Aravind Prasad 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 the static
> > checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> >
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the
static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions
> Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some
> possible
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule
It is super annoying to send a nagging message every day. Do not do it.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 08:03:22AM +0530, Aravind Prasad wrote:
> 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:
>
>
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 06:04:47PM +, 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 the static
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some
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 the static
>
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 even though
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 the static
>
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 the static
>
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 the static
>
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 the static
>
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 even though
Hi Aaron,
Thanks a lot for the review.
Submitted the patch with comments addressed as below.
> /doesnot/doesn't/ or /doesnot/does not/
> Or maybe even just remove that sentence.
> :)
Addressed. Changed to "does not"
> This second if looks strange. I think it should be removed.
Addressed.
Currently, rule_insert() API does not have return value. There are some possible
scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the static
checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
Aravind Prasad S writes:
> Currently, rule_insert() API doesnot have return value. There are some
> possible
/doesnot/doesn't/ or /doesnot/does not/
Or maybe even just remove that sentence.
:)
> scenarios where rule insertions can fail at run-time even though the static
> checks during
> 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
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions
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
checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
>Hi Ben/All,
>If possible, Kindly hold reviewing this patch for now. Expecting an
approval from my Org. Sorry for the inconvenience >caused and thanks for
the support.
>Will get back and intimate for the review as soon as possible after the
approval (expecting it to take not more than a week).
OK.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 02:58:47PM +0530, Aravind Prasad wrote:
> Hi Ben/All,
>
> If possible, Kindly hold reviewing this patch for now. Expecting an
> approval from my Org. Sorry for the inconvenience caused and thanks for the
> support.
>
> Will get back and intimate for the review as
Hi Ben/All,
If possible, Kindly hold reviewing this patch for now. Expecting an
approval from my Org. Sorry for the inconvenience caused and thanks for the
support.
Will get back and intimate for the review as soon as possible after the
approval (expecting it to take not more than a week). And
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
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule insertions can
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:02:08PM +0530, Aravind Prasad S 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
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
> Some
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
checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
Hi Aaron,
> 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
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
>
> Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
> **) Rule
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
checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
Hi Arvind,
Aravind Prasad writes:
> 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
> checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
>
> Some possible scenarios for failure of
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
checks during rule_construct() had passed previously.
Some possible scenarios for failure of rule insertions:
**) Rule insertions can fail
> Currently, rule_insert() and rule_delete() ofproto provider APIs do not
>
>
> have return values. There are some possible scenarios where rule
insertions
>
> and deletions can fail at run-time even though the static checks during
>
> rule_construct() had passed previously.
>
>
>
> Some possible
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 06:14:38PM +0530, Aravind Prasad wrote:
> Currently, rule_insert() and rule_delete() ofproto provider APIs do not
>
>
> have return values. There are some possible scenarios where rule insertions
>
> and deletions can fail at run-time even though the static checks during
Currently, rule_insert() and rule_delete() ofproto provider APIs do not
have return values. There are some possible scenarios where rule insertions
and deletions can fail at run-time even though the static checks during
rule_construct() had passed previously.
Some possible scenarios for
44 matches
Mail list logo
