Modify LNW documentation for 24.01 release #389
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sandeep N <[email protected]>
n-sandeep
requested review from
ffoulkes,
nupuruttarwar,
vsureshkumarp and
5abeel
as code owners
| Modify p4 programm with below changes, to enable support for | ||
|
|
||
| - IPv6 traffic with VxLAN support. | ||
| - VxLAN traffic fails when remote overlay VMs MAC is learnt on OvS, before DUTs overlay VMs MAC address. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not clear what are we enabling the support for here. The statement describes the problem but not the functionality. 1st one sounds like feature enhancement but wasn't IPv6 code already available. Are both bug fixes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IPv6 is already available but due to a defect in p4 program, without this p4 programs change, IPv6 with VxLAN traffic will fail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Issue 1
The added section is not part of the Feature Overview. It belongs at heading level 2, not heading level 3.
Issue 2
Patches belong in patch files. Putting them in a document makes the document harder to read and the patch harder to apply. The document should describe the problem(s) being fixed and/or the feature(s) being added, and then link to the patch file(s).
Issue 3
The introduction does not make sense.
To understand what it actually says, apply the first sentence to each item in the list that follows, as if you were distributing a term in a system of algebraic equations.
- Modify [the] P4 program with [the following] changes, to enable support for IPv6 traffic with VxLAN support.
- Modify [the] P4 program with [the following] changes, to enable support for VxLAN traffic fails when remote overlay VMs MAC is learnt on OvS, before DUTs overlay VMs MAC address.
These are independent paragraphs, not bullets in a list.
Issue 4
The purpose of the second bullet is unclear. Are you describing a defect in the P4 program that the patch fixes, a defect in the P4 program that the patch does not fix, or a defect in the P4 program once the patch has been applied?
If the patch adds a feature and fixes a defect, it should clearly state this.
The second bullet also needs to be rewritten. It doesn't make sense. I'd suggest writing a clean description of the problem, as one or more complete sentences. Part of the problem appears to be the use of s instead of es or 's for the possessive. It might be clearer to use prepositions in one or more of these cases, to make the description less terse.
I'd also suggest saying something more concrete than "VxLAN traffic fails." Fails how? Drops packets? Misdirects them?
Signed-off-by: Sandeep N <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Danger, Will Robinson!
Please do not create branches whose names begin with ipdk_v.
This prefix is reserved for release branches.
There are GitHub workflows that are triggered by branch names with this prefix!
No description provided.