Re: Integration of Open vSwitch

[Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs-jkUAjuhPggJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Jesse,

I empathize with effort youve put in, i really do; youve
already created the messaging from user space to kernel
and dammit it works; however, i  dont agree with your reasoning. 
The classifier action code is _exactly_ the same infrastructure.
The user space API/messaging already exists. If there are actions
or a classifier missing - add it.
I wish i had the time to re-write the pieces i think need
changing. If the plan is to migrate to the current tc action
code, I will be fine with it - but you are not even suggesting
that.

I think i will punt this to DaveM to make the call.

cheers,
jamal

On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 15:30 -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:

> 
> I completely agree with the desire to share code where there's overlap
> and it makes sense (I was actually just working on some refactoring to
> increase code reuse before this).
> 
> I think one of the key things to focus on is the userspace/kernel
> interface since we'll have much less opportunity to significantly
> change that over time.  Getting both compatibility and performance is
> something that we've worked on a fair amount and have arrived at a
> solution that meets the needs of OVS (and probably only OVS) pretty
> well.  I think it's a nice model but keeping that while refactoring on
> top of the tc layer seems challenging to do cleanly because the flow
> information is needed by both the flow lookup and userspace
> communication.  Stringing that through generic code seems fairly
> unappealing.
>
> So I agree with you in principle and if you are right that things tend
> to converge there should be more room for code reuse over time.  Right
> now though I would just focus on the high level bits.