Thanks for review, On 29 May 2015 at 13:22, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:56:15PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> > > The code in scan_u128() looks wrong to me: I don't see anything that > makes the second call to ovs_scan(), to get the mask, skip past the > value, e.g. by passing s + n to the second ovs_scan() or by advancing s > with s += n.
You're right, I also used this for conn_label but I didn't attempt to mask the connlabel. Also, mask doesn't make sense for UFID so it wasn't tested there. > I have another idea too: these issues for ovs_u128 are quite similar to > the issues for UUIDs, which are also exactly 128 bits long and already > have support for parsing, formatting, and so on, and furthermore have a > distinctive format that is easily identifiable. Have you considered > using UUIDs as the representation for ufids? I don't think I'd recognized that UUID was even present. I think it makes sense to reuse the same for UUID and UFID. My other aim was to make this usable by conn_label, which also implies optional mask. Perhaps it's appropriate to morph this function into a wrapper for the UUID parsing/formatting, with support for masks. (Should *all* 128-bit values be printed like UUIDs, or just ID-like information?) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
