One more thought: it's pretty easy to get rid of flow_wildcards later if we don't want it; it's harder to reintroduce it.
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Sounds reasonable. > > Ethan > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:10:22PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> In flow_wildcards_init_catchall() and flow_wildcards_init_exact() why > >> not just memset? Perhaps the appropriate time to make that change > >> would have been when in_port was changed to a mask come to think of > >> it. It's fine to leave it if you're going to resolve it in a future > >> patch of the series. > > > > That (and other simplifications) happen in patch 21/28, so I guess > > I'll leave them there. > > > >> The indentation isn't quite right in flow_wildcards_combine(). It was > >> incorrect before this patch as well, but this may be a good time to > >> clean it up. > > > > OK, fixed. > > > >> I suspect you're going to switch flow_wildcards_equal() to using > >> memcmp() in a future patch? > > > > Yes. > > > >> Do we still need "struct flow_wildcards" at all? We could just use > >> struct flow directly. Again, perhaps this will make more sense once > >> I've seen the future patches. > > > > We don't need flow_wildcards. I kept it on the notion that it was > > useful to readers of code to be able to distinguish a flow from a set > > of wildcards for a flow, and useful from a type system perspective for > > the same reason. I may be wrong; I don't know. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
