On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:02:23PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:17:56PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >> Classifier users should not use negative priorities. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> > > > > The only priority that the classifier can't handle properly is > > INT_MIN. Unfortunately, that's also the one priority that this patch > > doesn't fix (since -INT_MIN == INT_MIN, at least on the system we care > > about). > > > > Oops, did not think of that! > > >> + cls_rule_init(&rule->cls_rule, &match, wc_fields > >> + ? (priority < 0 ? -priority: priority) > >> + : INT_MAX); > > How about this: > > cls_rule_init(&rule->cls_rule, &match, wc_fields > ? (priority == INT_MIN ? priority + 1 : priority) > : INT_MAX);
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
