On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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>
Pushed, thanks (but I forgot to add your Acked-by to the commit message, sorry!) Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
