On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:11:25PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:05:13PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >> When a whole field of a key value is ignored, skip it when formatting > >> the key, and allow it to be left out when parsing the key from a > >> string. However, when the unmasked bits have non-zero values (as in > >> keys received from a datapath), or when the 'verbose' formatting is > >> requested those are still formatted, as it may help in debugging. > >> > >> Now the named key fields can also be given in arbitrary order. > >> Duplicate field values are not checked for, so the last one will > >> remain in effect. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> > > > > This makes the formatting and parsing code less disastery. Thank you. > > > > (snip) > > > There's still some nastiness around the difference between an > > all-one-bits mask and a null mask. It takes some real care to read > > the code to see that it is correct, and I'm sure that it took at least > > as much care to write it. Can we do something about that? One way > > would be to always supply a mask, one that is all-one-bits if there > > would otherwise be no mask. That could be done externally to the > > format_*() functions, or it could be internally. > > How about this variation (I realized that ?verbose? covers the case > when the key includes non-masked bits):
OK. > > In *_bf(), what does "bf" stand for? > > > ?bitfield?, did not want to make the name longer? OK. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
