On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:39:18PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > I find this quite a bit simpler to reason about. Also, future patches > require xlate_actions() not to modify the packet. > > Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com>
This actually make xlate_actions() modify the packet more than before, although it does change it back. Did you mean that future patches require xlate_receive() not to modify the packet? The reason that we do this in xlate_receive() is basically the end-to-end principle: if we add the VLAN header as early as possible, then it means that nothing else in userspace has to know that the packet and the flow aren't really correct. If we do it later on, we have to audit everything between xlate_receive() and xlate_actions() to make sure that it doesn't depend on vlan_tci or whether there's a VLAN header in the packet. That's hard to do (did you do it?), and if you get it wrong in a corner case we probably won't find out for a long time because very few installations need the VLAN splinters feature. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
