-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
Bug fix: Flow Directory. (test_flow_dir) #248
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
dfbc44f
66d1725
f6d04a9
6bf658d
524db7f
289eaf3
785a682
0888f1a
ac08651
179afc0
a312d3f
d88f412
1c20d9e
6e419cb
7cc7a61
94446c6
31447bd
ed8681c
887a277
7c7ae8f
05dff7b
785ee44
92092ee
7c79874
90b77a1
98b4530
c92b77a
d113696
0ff3053
02cf1a4
faa11e6
61bff85
965329a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -102,9 +102,8 @@ onvm_pkt_process_tx_batch(struct queue_mgr *tx_mgr, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uin | |
| // and !<return value> is 1. | ||
| nf->stats.act_drop++; | ||
| nf->stats.tx += !onvm_pkt_drop(pkts[i]); | ||
| } else if (meta->action == ONVM_NF_ACTION_NEXT) { | ||
| /* TODO: Here we drop the packet : there will be a flow table | ||
| in the future to know what to do with the packet next */ | ||
| } else if (meta->action == ONVM_NF_ACTION_NEXT || meta->destination == ACTION_NEXT_DEST_ID) { | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @bdevierno1 setting 255 as the next action would definitely decrease performance, but I think that (from CI) we see that just having to process this or
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah this is correct. Unfortunately, I tried different ways to optimize this but did not see any substantial improvements. By removing the OR I will still have to set another conditional which will have to be placed before this statement so as to maintain the same logic. Perhaps there is another way to do this? |
||
| // Perform next action is configured by the manager's flow table | ||
| nf->stats.act_next++; | ||
| onvm_pkt_process_next_action(tx_mgr, pkts[i], nf); | ||
| } else if (meta->action == ONVM_NF_ACTION_TONF) { | ||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.