| Message ID | 1457730385-28923-3-git-send-email-rmoats@us.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:06:17PM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > From: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > Currently changes are added to the front of the track list, so > they are looped through in LIFO order. Incremental processing > is more efficient with a FIFO presentation, so > (1) add new changes to the back of the track list, and > (2) move updated changes to the back of the track list > > Signed-off-by: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> I applied this because it makes a lot of sense to me: it causes changes to be presented in their natural order, that is, in the order in which they were received. I'm copying Shad, the original author of the column tracking code, on this message in case he wants to advocate that the previous order was superior. Thanks, Ben.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:37:50PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:06:17PM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > > From: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > > > Currently changes are added to the front of the track list, so > > they are looped through in LIFO order. Incremental processing > > is more efficient with a FIFO presentation, so > > (1) add new changes to the back of the track list, and > > (2) move updated changes to the back of the track list > > > > Signed-off-by: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > I applied this because it makes a lot of sense to me: it causes changes > to be presented in their natural order, that is, in the order in which > they were received. I'm copying Shad, the original author of the column > tracking code, on this message in case he wants to advocate that the > previous order was superior. Oops, trying again with Shad's email address fixed.
Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote on 03/22/2016 04:37:50 PM: > From: Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS, Shad Ansari <shad.ansar@hpe.com> > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Date: 03/22/2016 04:38 PM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev, v9, 02/10] Present tracked changes in > increasing change number order > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:06:17PM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > > From: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > > > Currently changes are added to the front of the track list, so > > they are looped through in LIFO order. Incremental processing > > is more efficient with a FIFO presentation, so > > (1) add new changes to the back of the track list, and > > (2) move updated changes to the back of the track list > > > > Signed-off-by: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > I applied this because it makes a lot of sense to me: it causes changes > to be presented in their natural order, that is, in the order in which > they were received. I'm copying Shad, the original author of the column > tracking code, on this message in case he wants to advocate that the > previous order was superior. > > Thanks, > > Ben. > Thanks Ben, and FYI, I've got lots of reasons (read scars) for why I think the previous order is *not* superior - I'll be happy to share them (if need be)... Ryan (regXboi)
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Ben Pfaff > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:38 PM > To: Ryan Moats <rmoats@us.ibm.com>; Shad Ansari <shad.ansar@hpe.com> > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [ovs-dev, v9, 02/10] Present tracked changes in increasing > change number order > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:06:17PM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > > From: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > > > Currently changes are added to the front of the track list, so > > they are looped through in LIFO order. Incremental processing > > is more efficient with a FIFO presentation, so > > (1) add new changes to the back of the track list, and > > (2) move updated changes to the back of the track list > > > > Signed-off-by: RYAN D. MOATS <rmoats@us.ibm.com> > > I applied this because it makes a lot of sense to me: it causes changes > to be presented in their natural order, that is, in the order in which > they were received. I'm copying Shad, the original author of the column > tracking code, on this message in case he wants to advocate that the > previous order was superior. > > Thanks, > Makes sense. Thanks. Acked-by: Shad Ansari <shad.ansari@hpe.com>
diff --git a/lib/ovsdb-idl.c b/lib/ovsdb-idl.c index 4cb1c81..5dc8565 100644 --- a/lib/ovsdb-idl.c +++ b/lib/ovsdb-idl.c @@ -1350,10 +1350,11 @@ ovsdb_idl_row_change__(struct ovsdb_idl_row *row, const struct json *row_json, = row->table->change_seqno[change] = row->table->idl->change_seqno + 1; if (table->modes[column_idx] & OVSDB_IDL_TRACK) { - if (list_is_empty(&row->track_node)) { - list_push_front(&row->table->track_list, - &row->track_node); + if (!list_is_empty(&row->track_node)) { + list_remove(&row->track_node); } + list_push_back(&row->table->track_list, + &row->track_node); if (!row->updated) { row->updated = bitmap_allocate(class->n_columns); } @@ -1572,7 +1573,7 @@ ovsdb_idl_row_destroy(struct ovsdb_idl_row *row) = row->table->idl->change_seqno + 1; } if (list_is_empty(&row->track_node)) { - list_push_front(&row->table->track_list, &row->track_node); + list_push_back(&row->table->track_list, &row->track_node); } } }