On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:43:21AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 02:13:14PM -0500, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 08:51:31AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:14:28PM -0500, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:55:58PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:41:51AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > > > This is in preparation for supporting group mod and desc reply > > > > > > messages with an NMX selection method group experimenter property. > > > > > > > > > > > > NMX selection method > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > v2 Use list of struct field_array of TLVs rather than OF1.1 match > > > > > > for fields field of NMX selection method property > > > > > > > > > > It might be simpler to use an actual array for struct field_array. I > > > > > guess that we can be sure there will be no more than MFF_N_IDS > > > > > elements? > > > > > > > > As duplicates are rejected I believe that we can make that assumption. > > > > > > > > I think that should simplify the code somewhat at the > > > > expense of some memory cost if the property is present. > > > > I'm assuming that you are happy about the latter and > > > > I'll see about making it so. > > > > > > I'm not sure yet as I haven't read the rest of the series yet. If > > > you're unsure then you might want to wait for the rest of the reviews. > > > > Thanks. I'll wait. > > > > After writing my previous email I recalled the original motivation > > for the empty string indicating that the existing behaviour should occur. > > > > My original proposal extended the group mod message and as such the fields > > to describe the selection method were always present. In that scenario > > using a empty field to denote that the feature was turned off made sense > > (at least to me). Later, on your advice IIRC, I reworked things to use a > > group mod property which may be present or absent. And at that time I > > didn't modify the empty field behaviour which, as you pointed out, seems > > unnecessary now. > > I understand now. I'd prefer to only allow such a property if the > string names a supported method. (This might require squashing some > patches; that's fine.)
Thanks, I'll see about making it so. > Would you mind rebasing the series now and reposting it? I'd like to > do build testing as I go and I'm having trouble finding a base that I > can apply everything to cleanly. Alternatively it would be fine to > push the series as-is to a branch somewhere. I have pushed the series to: https://github.com/horms/openvswitch.git devel/ext-350+selection_method The base is somewhat old. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
