On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:54:37AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> This helps reduce confusion about when a flow is a flow
> and when it is just metadata.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
Clang says:
../lib/dpif-netdev.c:1186:39: error: missing field 'ip_src' initializer
[-Werror,-Wmissing-field-initializers]
struct dpif_metadata md =
DPIF_METADATA_INITIALIZER(port->port_no);
^
../lib/dpif.h:503:47: note: expanded from macro 'DPIF_METADATA_INITIALIZER'
#define DPIF_METADATA_INITIALIZER(PORT) { { 0 }, 0, 0, (PORT) }
sparse says:
../lib/dpif-netdev.c:1301:63: warning: incorrect type in argument 3
(different base types)
../lib/dpif-netdev.c:1301:63: expected restricted odp_port_t [usertype]
out_port
../lib/dpif-netdev.c:1301:63: got unsigned int
Do you think that it is worthwhile to use a pointer in struct
dpif_execute? It is more straightforward to just embed an struct
dpif_metadata, and I am not sure that there is a big penalty to doing
so.
odp_key_to_dpif_metadata() duplicates some code in
odp_flow_key_to_flow__(), but it is a bit difficult to remove the
duplication because of the difference between struct flow and struct
dpif_metadata. I guess the best one could do is write a common helper
that takes individual pointers to a struct flow_tnl, an skb_priority,
a pkt_mark, and an in_port. I don't know whether that is better.
What does "9 * 8" come from, for ODP_KEY_METADATA_SIZE? (Is it
intended as an estimate or an exact value?)
The parameters to flow_extract() seem to be very closely related to
dpif_metadata, which suggests that this concept might be higher level
than dpif.
Thanks,
Ben.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
