On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Dave Barach (dbarach) <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >>> Especially in multi-core situations, some care is required. I’m
> generally a fan of setting interfaces admin-down, vs. actually deleting
> them.
>
Ah, I see. Check.
(So, for lack of atomic_inc() or visible locking of some form, the function
vnet_create_loopback_interface() is already not safely reentrant due to
the static u32 instance number. Is this function possibly called in a
multi-core
senario? (I'm not sure what the global calling structure and threading model
around this code is. (Sorry.)))
> And second, is there a bit-vector implementation around?
>
>
>
> >>> clib_bitmap_XXX(...), used in lots of places
>
>
>
> I would assume so and I just need to go looking...?
>
Sweet. Thanks.
> I still need to resolve the name expectations; that is, expecting
>
> "Loopback" to be the base, and not "loop". Does one of these
>
> options make more sense here?
>
>
>
> >>> This is an easy one. The string “loop” exists in exactly one place:
>
>
>
> static u8 *
>
> format_simulated_ethernet_name (u8 * s, va_list * args)
>
> {
>
> u32 dev_instance = va_arg (*args, u32);
>
> return format (s, "loop%d", dev_instance);
>
> }
>
Sure. (Thanks.) My real question is will existing VPP users and test
tolerate me just patching that to be s/loop/Loopback/. I suspect "No".
> 1) Have the API create call supply the desired name directly,
>
> defaulting to "loop"-names if none are specified.
>
>
>
> >>> Would it satisfy the cash customers to change the base string to
> “Loopback” - perhaps based on a config parameter - and add the desired
> instance number (not a free-form string) to the API? That will be less of a
> mess to implement.
>
Absolutely. That was my preferred approach as well.
> 2) Have a loopback-module-global-ish config variable stating
>
> to be in "loop" or "Loopback" mode. Mode can be set via
>
> new loopback API config call, or via VPP startup config setting.
>
>
>
> >>> could be done, of course, see (3) below...
>
>
>
> 3) Tell our users to get used to the New "loop" World Order? :-)
>
>
>
> >>> This would be a good topic for the vpp project call next week... I’ll
> add it to the agenda...
>
>
So, yeah, that would be good. Sorry, I will be unable to make that meeting.
> PS -- At the risk of foretelling the future, bridge names are going to
>
> have this same naming issue, right? 'Cuz those are next up!
>
>
>
> >>> Copying John Lo so he can stock up on headache remedies...
>
Excellent!
Thanks,
jdl
_______________________________________________
vpp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
