Hey Ben,
> It would be nice to add a sentence or two to the commit message > explaining why we think it's OK to drop the distinction between the > two queues we had before (as already discussed). > Yes, I'll do that, > The choice of hash function, in flow_hash_5tuple(), seems curious. I > would have expected something like: > > hash = mhash_add(basis, flow->nw_src); > hash = mhash_add(hash, flow->nw_dst); > hash = mhash_add(hash, (flow->tp_src << 16) | flow->tp_dst); > hash = mhash_add(hash, flow->nw_proto); > return mhash_finish(hash, 13); > > with some OVS_FORCE casts thrown in to make sparse happy. Any > particular reason to just xor everything together? (Do we need a > symmetric hash?) > Yeah, I did xor when prototype datapath fairness project and kept using them. I'll use mhash. > I didn't look over the details of the queuing changes yet. > I'll post a V2 once we settle down on the API patch.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
