On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Ansis Atteka <aatt...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:20:33PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:07:29PM -0800, Ansis Atteka wrote: >>>> >> This patch adds logging support for skb_mark and skb_priority. >>>> >> >>>> >> Signed-off-by: Ansis Atteka >>>> > >>>> > skb_priority has two 16-bit subfields, at least with the qdiscs that >>>> > I'm familiar with, so it's easier to read when it's printed in >>>> > hexadecimal. This means that I'd change "%"PRIu32 to "%#"PRIx32 and >>>> > MFS_DECIMAL to MFS_HEXADECIMAL for this field. >>>> >>>> If we do that (which sounds fine), we probably should also update >>>> odp-util.c to print priority in hex. >>> >>> Good idea. >>> >>>> It might not be a bad idea to make mark hex as well. >>> >>> I don't know anything about the semantics of skb_mark. I'll take your >>> word for it. >> >> I think it's pretty much user-defined unstructured data. I don't >> think there is a strong reason to chose one or the other but I find >> binary blobs easier to read in hex. > > Ok, I will change skb_mark to hex format too. Mainly because later on > we might want to partially mask out skb_mark. For example, as of now > it is possible to install single IPSEC policy that does not match just > a specific mark, but rather a masked out range. > > Also, it seems that it would make more sense to change "priority" to > "skb_priority" in odp-util.c for the sake of consistency.
That sounds like a good idea to me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
