On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:47:23PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > The return value semantics of nxm_read_field() are surprising in that > > it just masks off the bits not being read. ?If I had not read the code > > for the function, I would have guessed that it also shifted the bits > > so that the least-significant bit being read was the least-significant > > bit in the return value. ?If the existing behavior is actually the > > most convenient, it'd be good for the function's comment to mention > > it. > > Turns out this is a bug. I sent out another version of that patch, > plus a patch that adds test. We may want to consider backporting it.
Argh. Thank you, I didn't realize that this was an existing bug. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
