Just for completeness, We are dealing with eth_type and in_port by forcing exact match int the kernel.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote: > Jesse, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. > > As far as I know, this is part of the plan on improving how user space and > kernel are treating missing attributes. > > Missing attribute has to be interpreted to be some default value, and the > value is usually opaque to the other side of the protocol. When a mask is > applied to the field, The opaque value may be matched unintentionally. In > general, we feel that having opaque values will make the netlink protocol > error prone. The saving in netlink bandwidth is not worth the trouble. > > For backward compatibility reasons, some fields, such as in_port and > eth_type, we will continue to allow them to be missing, Priority and > skb_mark, on the hand, can be made explicit and still be backward > compatible, > > Although not fix any bug in particular, this is part the clean up effort. > Kernel side of change is already in. > > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> The commit message doesn't say why. Why? >> > >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
