On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:50:23AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:45:25AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:58:14AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:53:28PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > everywhere that such a port can plausibly be used (previously they > > > > were only accepted in some places). > > > > > > > > - Translate 0xfff8...0xffff to 0xfffffff8...0xffffffff for now, > > > > since > > > > OF1.1+ isn't in widespread use and those particular ports aren't > > > > likely to be in use in OF1.1+ anyway. > > > > > > I don't really like the above assumption, 0xfff8...0xffff > > > are valid OF1.1+ port numbers, it seems that it would > > > cause rather a surprise if they were used as non-reserved ports > > > but Open vSwtich interpreted them as reserved ports. > > > > > > I am prepared to live with it, but I don't like it. > > > > For now, we couldn't use those OF1.1+ port numbers anyway, because > > internally OVS only supports 16-bit port numbers. Presumably some > > time in the future we'll switch OVS to use 32-bit port numbers > > internally, but until then I can't really see a drawback. > > True, I reflected on that after writing my previous response. > > > Would it make you happier if I added some kind of formal deprecation > > notice to NEWS saying that numeric values for the reserved OpenFlow > > ports won't be supported after such-and-such a date? > > I'm happy with adding that notice at a later date. > > In all, I think that this is a reasonable approach given the constraints. > > Acked-by: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au>
Thanks. I'll send out a patch to add the deprecation notice in a minute. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
