Should 'no-port' be treated as wildcarded match on in_port?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >> @@ -1317,6 +1326,7 @@ static int metadata_from_nlattrs(struct
> sw_flow_match *match, u64 *attrs,
> >> *attrs &= ~(1ULL << OVS_KEY_ATTR_IN_PORT);
> >> } else if (!is_mask) {
> >> SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT(match, phy.in_port, DP_MAX_PORTS,
> is_mask);
> >> + SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT(match, phy.in_port, 0xffff, !is_mask);
> >
> > Can you put this in a separate patch? All of these
> > attribute-not-present corner cases are getting really nasty and I
> > think that the vlan issues are actually somewhat separate.
>
> Actually, I don't think that this part is right anyways. The fact that
> someone implicitly used a 'no-port' input port doesn't inherently mean
> that they want to match on it - it could just be part of the packet
> that's causing the flow to be set up.
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
