On Apr 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote:
...
> @@ -2681,9 +2681,9 @@ unencap:
> * capable of being expanded to allow for that much space. */
> void
> odp_flow_key_from_flow(struct ofpbuf *buf, const struct flow *flow,
> - odp_port_t odp_in_port)
> + const struct flow *mask, odp_port_t odp_in_port)
> {
> - odp_flow_key_from_flow__(buf, flow, flow, odp_in_port, SIZE_MAX);
> + odp_flow_key_from_flow__(buf, flow, flow, mask, odp_in_port, SIZE_MAX);
> }
>
This looks odd, how about passing in both flow and mask, and a boolean
“is_mask” instead of “flow, flow, mask” or “mask, flow, mask” below?
> /* Appends a representation of 'mask' as OVS_KEY_ATTR_* attributes to
> @@ -2699,8 +2699,8 @@ odp_flow_key_from_mask(struct ofpbuf *buf, const struct
> flow *mask,
> const struct flow *flow, uint32_t odp_in_port_mask,
> size_t max_mpls_depth)
> {
> - odp_flow_key_from_flow__(buf, mask, flow, u32_to_odp(odp_in_port_mask),
> - max_mpls_depth);
> + odp_flow_key_from_flow__(buf, mask, flow, mask,
> + u32_to_odp(odp_in_port_mask), max_mpls_depth);
> }
>
Otherwise,
Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
Jarno
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
