Can't you just add skb_mark to the input?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote:
> This helps to keep the test easy: Input is the same as output.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> > Handling of missing attributes in netlink can be tricky and turns out
>> > to be error prone. The value (savings in netlink bandwidth) does not
>> > seem to be significant enough to justify allowing them. This patch
>> > series make both kernel and userspace always export priority and
>> > skb_mark attribute. There will be follow on patches in the
>> > direction of making all attributes explicit.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com>
>> > ---
>> > lib/odp-util.c | 62
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> > tests/ofproto-dpif.at | 18 +++++++-------
>> > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/lib/odp-util.c b/lib/odp-util.c
>> > index 3c3063d..1f7db2f 100644
>> > --- a/lib/odp-util.c
>> > +++ b/lib/odp-util.c
>> > @@ -926,6 +926,42 @@ odp_mask_attr_is_exact(const struct nlattr *ma)
>> > return is_exact;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static bool
>> > +ommit_format(enum ovs_key_attr attr, const struct nlattr *a,
>> > + const struct nlattr *ma)
>> > +{
>> > + switch (attr) {
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_PRIORITY:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_SKB_MARK:
>> > + if (!nl_attr_get_u32(a)) {
>> > + if ((!ma) || !nl_attr_get_u32(ma)) {
>> > + return true; /* Omit output 0 (no mask) or 0/0 */
>> > + }
>> > + }
>> > + break;
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_UNSPEC:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ENCAP:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_TUNNEL:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_IN_PORT:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ETHERNET:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_VLAN:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ETHERTYPE:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_IPV4:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_IPV6:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_TCP:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_UDP:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ICMP:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ICMPV6:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ARP:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ND:
>> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_MPLS:
>> > + case __OVS_KEY_ATTR_MAX:
>> > + default:
>> > + break;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + return false;
>> > +}
>>
>> Does it actually make sense to omit printing of these fields still?
>> After all, we print fully wildcarded other fields and this is really
>> debugging output.
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
