On Jan 17, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comments!
I have updated patches 1/4, 2/4, and 4/4 according to your comments.
I really appreciate your patch for the sparse warnings.
[...]
> /* Cf. IETF RFC 5101 Section 3.1. */
> struct ipfix_header {
> - uint16_t version; /* IPFIX_VERSION. */
> - uint16_t length; /* Length in bytes including this header. */
> - uint32_t export_time; /* Seconds since the epoch. */
> - uint32_t seq_number; /* Message sequence number. */
> - uint32_t obs_domain_id; /* Observation Domain ID. */
> + ovs_be16 version; /* IPFIX_VERSION. */
> + ovs_be16 length; /* Length in bytes including this header. */
> + ovs_be32 export_time; /* Seconds since the epoch. */
> + ovs_be32 seq_number; /* Message sequence number. */
> + ovs_be32 obs_domain_id; /* Observation Domain ID. */
> } __attribute__((packed));
> BUILD_ASSERT_DECL(sizeof(struct ipfix_header) == 16);
Sorry for having missed this one.
That's weird, I checked with sparse. I must do it wrong. :/
[...]
>
> I'm also getting a build failure due to:
> The distribution is missing the following files:
> ofproto/ipfix-gen-entities
> so I think you need to use EXTRA_DIST (or add a new
> dist_noinst_SCRIPTS) instead of noinst_SCRIPTS.
dist_noinst_SCRIPTS does the trick. make distcheck passes now.
> This is going to require some rethinking in a bit, because we are
> moving from a model where the in_port uniquely identifies the ofproto
> associated with an action to one where it doesn't: because patch ports
> are going to be implemented in userspace, an action might be
> associated with an ofproto other than the one where the packet
> arrived. So we need to get a bit more information from the kernel to
> userspace somehow.
I guess that will require increasing the cookie size or use the cookie as an
index?
[...]
--
Romain Lenglet
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
