Thank you for the review! I did the proposed/agreed upon clarifications and pushed this to master.
Jarno On Sep 9, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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
