[openstack-dev] [OVN] [networking-ovn] [networking-sfc] SFC and OVN
rmoats at us.ibm.com
Sun May 8 18:23:49 UTC 2016
First, apologies for the cross-posting, but when this topic came up last
I wasn't able to keep track of all the folks that asked to be included in
so I'm doing a mass post to try and catch everybody that might be
Second, John, thank you for stepping forward and mentioning that you've
working on code for SFC and OVN!! I took a look at your repos on
(because I'm a firm believe in NOT re-inventing the wheel) and my initial
This repo is the cleanest, as I was able to merge the current
master on top of it with no conflicts. Looking around, I'm not entirely
comfortable with the idea of networking-sfc making direct calls to the OVN
in parallel to networking-ovn. I believe a cleaner solution would be to
add the code to configure OVN for SFC to networking-ovn itself, and expose
API that the driver code in networking-sfc would call.
This repo makes me a bit nervous, as it claims to be 36 commits ahead
(and 129 commits behind) openstack-master. That's a substantial drift, and
the first thing I wanted to do was see what merge conflicts might exist
I try to merge the current master into it. There are two merge conflicts
detected in networking_ovn/plugin.py, and given (as I understand it) the
direction of splitting the networking-ovn monolithic plugin back into ML2
and L3 service portions, I encourage you to rebase this commit (if you
have time, let me know and I'll see about fixing the merge issue).
This repo also has some drift (in that it is 21 comits ahead and 406
behind openvswitch master). The merge conflicts I've found here are in
ovn/ovn-nb.ovsschema and ovn/northd/ovn-northd.c. The ovsschema conflict
looks like it can be resolved by bumping the micro version of the current
and recalculating/inserting the schema checksum. On the other hand, the
conflicts in ovn-northd.c are a bit more numerous (I count 22 of them as I
this). I'm not sure what the easiest way is to get this rebased onto the
current tip of tree master...
The reason I'm interested in the rebasing exercises is I want to get to a
of patches that can be publically committed, at which point I (wearing my
operator hat) can evaluate them to see if they meet our needs for SFC. If
need help with the rebasing, I'm happy to work with you...
Ryan Moats (regXboi on IRC, jayhawk87 on github)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev