On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:48:33PM +0000, Pritesh Kothari (pritkoth) wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:00:46AM +0000, Pritesh Kothari (pritkoth) wrote:
> >> any insight into this would be greatly appreciated, alternatively i was
> >> thinking
> >> of adding the code shown below, outside the outer most for loop in tnl_find
> >> to add the 8 matches mentioned above, but then tnl_match_map can?t exactly
> >> differentiate these cases from original 12 above, so not sure about it.
> >>
> >> for (in_key_flow = 0; in_key_flow < 2; in_key_flow++) {
> >> for (in_nsp_flow = 0; in_nsp_flow < 2; in_nsp_flow++) {
> >> for (in_nsi_flow = 0; ip_nsi_flow < 2; ip_nsi_flow++) {
> >
> > We probably don't want so many nested loops--48 tests is wasteful. I'd
> > suggest instead maintaining a uint64_t with a 1-bit in each position
> > where there is any match, and then iterating through the 1-bits with
> > bitwise functions.
>
> sounds good to me, will do this and post a patch for this in rfc for
> nsh soon.
OK. Is a new patch series almost ready then? It seems like it's been a
long time since the last update.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
