Skip to content
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

Backport Serializing bitseq alloc (#1788) #1967

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 4, 2017
Merged

Conversation

abhi
Copy link
Contributor

@abhi abhi commented Oct 4, 2017

No description provided.

Previously the bitseq alloc was allocating the first available bit from the
begining of the sequence. With this commit the bitseq alloc will proceed
from the current allocation. This change will affect the way ipam and vni
allocation is done currently. The ip allocation will be done sequentially
from the previous allocation as opposed to the first available IP.

Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Prativadi <abhi@docker.com>
(cherry picked from commit 5790b5c)
Since bit allocation is no longer first available from
the start some verfications are removed/modified to
the change allocation model

Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Prativadi <abhi@docker.com>
(cherry picked from commit 0184de8)
Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Prativadi <abhi@docker.com>
(cherry picked from commit a2bcac0)
The byteoffset calculation was skewed to double include
the offset value calculated. The double calculation
happens if the starting ordinal is part of the head
sequence block. This error in calculation could result
in duplicate but getting allocated eventually propogating
to ipam and vni id allocations

Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Prativadi <abhi@docker.com>
(cherry picked from commit 6ed2ad9)
Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Prativadi <abhi@docker.com>
(cherry picked from commit f766f09)
Copy link
Contributor

@mavenugo mavenugo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@mavenugo mavenugo merged commit abace68 into moby:bump_17.06 Oct 4, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants