On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 10:09:20AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 04:22:07PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > This patch implements use-space datapath and non-datapath code > > to match and use the datapath API set out in Leo Alterman's patch > > "user-space datapath: Add basic MPLS support to kernel". > > > > The resulting MPLS implementation supports: > > * Pushing a single MPLS label > > * Poping a single MPLS label > > * Modifying an MPLS lable using set-field or load actions > > that act on the label value, tc and bos bit. > > * There is no support for manipulating the TTL > > this is considered future work. > > > > The single-level push pop limitation is implemented by processing > > push, pop and set-field/load actions in order and discarding information > > that would require multiple levels of push/pop to be supported. > > > > e.g. > > push,push -> the first push is discarded > > pop,pop -> the first pop is discarded > > > > This patch is based heavily on work by Ravi K. > > > > Cc: Ravi K <rke...@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Isaku Yamahata <yamah...@valinux.co.jp> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> > > I resolved a few merge conflicts, then I went through this fairly > carefully and made a few changes, mostly cosmetic. I'm appending an > incremental and then a full revised patch. > > Here's a little commentary on the less trivial changes I made: > > - I think that eth_mpls_depth() was capable of counting an MPLS label > that was off the end of the packet as part of the depth (for > example, if there was one MPLS label without BOS followed by the > end of the packet, I believe that it would count this as depth 2). > This wasn't a problem for current callers but it seemed like a bad > idea, so I changed it. Please check that it looks correct. > > - I think mf_random_value() should have used ->u8 for TC and BOS so I > changed it.
Thanks, both of those changes seem reasonable to me. I'll review these and the changes in your diff more thoroughly and get back to you ASAP. > I have one question before I commit this: it seems that we could support > a series of more than one pop_mpls action, why do we limit the number of > pops to just one? I think that I agree with you. I'll take a look and see how practical it would be to remove that restriction. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
