On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:08:25PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:03:15AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 02:01:12PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:16:38PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > + enum ofputil_protocol protocol;
> > > > +
> > > > + switch(oh->version) {
> > > > + case OFP10_VERSION:
> > > > + protocol = OFPUTIL_P_OF10_TID;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + protocol = ofputil_protocol_from_ofp_version(oh->version);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > ofpbuf_init(&ofpacts, 64);
> > > > - error = ofputil_decode_flow_mod(&fm, oh, OFPUTIL_P_OF10_TID,
> > > > &ofpacts);
> > > > + error = ofputil_decode_flow_mod(&fm, oh, protocol, &ofpacts);
> > >
> > > I think it'd be better to calculate the protocol to use as something
> > > more like:
> > >
> > > protocol = ofputil_protocol_from_ofp_version(oh->version);
> > > protocol = ofputil_protocol_set_tid(protocol, true);
> >
> > I'm not sure that I understand the implications of that,
> > but I'll see about updating my patch accordingly.
>
> Well, it just makes sure that the protocol we pass in supports
> table-id, because that's more useful for dumping flow_mods than ones
> that don't. If you get it wrong in the other direction, then the
> flow_mod output can be hard to read. And it seems cleaner than
> writing out the logic explicitly.
Thanks, I understand now.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
