> tnl_match is only used to match on incoming packets. Therefore it would be > much clearer if "ip_src" actually meant the "ip source address" and "ip_dst" > "ip destination address" w.r.t the received packet. See below.
Personally I think it's clearer to keep it consistent with netdev_tunnel_config, and struct flow_tnl. > How about the struct ofport_dpif pointing to this? That way we could get rid > of > the ofport_map (and find_ofport()), as the calling sites in ofproto_dpif.c > would > have the ofport_dpif->tnl_port available? Not a bad idea, this turned out to clean up the code so I went ahead and folded it in. > Is this really necessary? I imagine we could want to match on also the other > tunnel fields on the flow-basis in the future. Also, this seems like a change > to the current tunneling behavior, so it should not be a problem to let the > tunnel data be? > I'm not sure it's strictly necessary, but it feels defensive to me. If we add matches for the outer tunnel header at some point, we can revisit it. Ethan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
