Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|
Type: style
Signed-off-by: Neale Ranns <nranns@cisco.com>
Change-Id: I26a19e42076e031ec5399d5ca05cb49fd6fbe1cd
|
|
Type: refactor
Change-Id: I54df533a8f863c4e49742903cf2457f18b4fc506
Signed-off-by: Neale Ranns <nranns@cisco.com>
|
|
Type: improvement
- inline some common encap fixup functions into the midchain
rewrite node so we don't incur the cost of the virtual function call
- change the copy 'guess' from ethernet_header (which will never happen) to an ip4 header
- add adj-midchain-tx to multiarch sources
- don't run adj-midchain-tx as a feature, instead put this node as the
adj's next and at the end of the feature arc.
- cache the feature arc config index (to save the cache miss going to fetch it)
- don't check if features are enabled when taking the arc (since we know they are)
the last two changes will also benefit normal adjacencies taking the arc (i.e. for NAT, ACLs, etc)
for IPSec:
- don't run esp_encrypt as a feature, instead when required insert this
node into the adj's next and into the end of the feature arc. this
implies that encrypt is always 'the last feature' run, which is
symmetric with decrypt always being the first.
- esp_encrpyt for tunnels has adj-midchain-tx as next node
Change-Id: Ida0af56a704302cf2d7797ded5f118a781e8acb7
Signed-off-by: Neale Ranns <nranns@cisco.com>
|
|
Type: refactor
Change-Id: I6f0af1c3078edce1c1b29a8b99c4a232d7084d33
Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@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>
|
|
Change-Id: Id4f37f5d4a03160572954a416efa1ef9b3d79ad1
Signed-off-by: Dave Barach <dave@barachs.net>
|
|
Change-Id: Ied34720ca5a6e6e717eea4e86003e854031b6eab
Signed-off-by: Dave Barach <dave@barachs.net>
|
|
Please refer to https://wiki.fd.io/view/NSH_SFC
Change-Id: Iba7e33e4dbb064c1527aaddbe8dce4b6b63a627a
Signed-off-by: Hongjun Ni <hongjun.ni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Burns (alagalah) <alagalah@gmail.com>
|