Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|
Type: improvement
Change-Id: I081dec2dc0c2bd0845dd4638b7b2f12806594112
Signed-off-by: Filip Tehlar <ftehlar@cisco.com>
|
|
Type: feature
... rather than always creating a new interface.
Change-Id: If8a22ad5a8a3a4e511bea7cab7d8bbf7e6af9433
Signed-off-by: Neale Ranns <nranns@cisco.com>
|
|
Type: fix
Change-Id: I382499061ff4b1c2cc1b70ebbf9725ff0e1be325
Signed-off-by: Filip Tehlar <ftehlar@cisco.com>
|
|
Type: feature
Change-Id: Ic703015b55f0ae947e5e44b10b74b3c79efe7da6
Signed-off-by: Filip Tehlar <ftehlar@cisco.com>
|
|
The vlib init function subsystem now supports a mix of procedural and
formally-specified ordering constraints. We should eliminate procedural
knowledge wherever possible.
The following schemes are *roughly* equivalent:
static clib_error_t *init_runs_first (vlib_main_t *vm)
{
clib_error_t *error;
... do some stuff...
if ((error = vlib_call_init_function (init_runs_next)))
return error;
...
}
VLIB_INIT_FUNCTION (init_runs_first);
and
static clib_error_t *init_runs_first (vlib_main_t *vm)
{
... do some stuff...
}
VLIB_INIT_FUNCTION (init_runs_first) =
{
.runs_before = VLIB_INITS("init_runs_next"),
};
The first form will [most likely] call "init_runs_next" on the
spot. The second form means that "init_runs_first" runs before
"init_runs_next," possibly much earlier in the sequence.
Please DO NOT construct sets of init functions where A before B
actually means A *right before* B. It's not necessary - simply combine
A and B - and it leads to hugely annoying debugging exercises when
trying to switch from ad-hoc procedural ordering constraints to formal
ordering constraints.
Change-Id: I5e4353503bf43b4acb11a45fb33c79a5ade8426c
Signed-off-by: Dave Barach <dave@barachs.net>
|
|
for easy integration with ptoducts running their own Ike stack.
Without the VPP IKE plugin loaded, the product is free to handle
IKE packets as it pleases.
Change-Id: Id0839f4d58b797f4c2da0382eb499fc08b05f66f
Signed-off-by: Neale Ranns <nranns@cisco.com>
|