archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:41:07 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

From: Pravin B Shelar <>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:00:26 -0700

> First two patches extends vxlan so that openvswitch can
> share vxlan udp port with vxlan module. Rest of patches
> refactors vxlan data plane so that ovs can share that
> code with vxlan module.
> Last patch adds vxlan-vport to openvswitch.

I'm mostly fine with this patch series and I assume Stephen will
eventually take it in via his vxlan tree.

However I do have one issue with patch #1 that I'd like to ask you to

You're doing two seperate things there.  First, you're abstracting out
the handler bits at one level of indirection via "struct
vxlan_handler" Second, you're adjusting how the headers are handled
in the handler paths.

I understand why you're doing the second part, to accomodate multiple
handlers properly.

But I think it would be much better to do this in two stages.

The first stage does the "struct vxlan_handler" abstraction and then
the second stage reworks how packet headers get adjusted.

I'm suggesting this for the purposes of bisectability.  I believe that
the header handling adjustments are the part that are going to be the
most dangerous for regressions.  So it would be best if we could
exactly pinpoint that exact change as causing problems in the future.

When you split this up, in the first patch, enforce only one handler
at a time.  You can remove this restriction as part of the second

I frankly think that this will make these changes easier to review and
audit as well.

How does that sound?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-07-25 23:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-24 18:00 Pravin B Shelar
2013-07-25 18:33 ` Jesse Gross
2013-07-25 23:41 ` David Miller [this message]
2013-07-26  1:53   ` Pravin Shelar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] openvswitch: VXLAN tunneling.' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).