For UFID, I sent a patch to reuse UUID for UFID: http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-June/055890.html
I'm currently thinking that for 128-bit maskable bitfields like conn_label, I'll have something similar to this original patch, which will represent the value as "conn_label=0xf00bar..../0xc0ffee...". 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. > > I'm also not sure that omitting the check for an exact-length 32-hexit > ufid is a good idea. If I use 31 hexits instead then I think the > semantics of ovs_scan() will yield 0-bits in the upper nibble of the .lo > member of ovs_u128, which doesn't seem to make sense. > > (That tends to argue that U128_SCAN_FMT is a bad idea entirely.) > > In the past we've tried to make sure that hexadecimal values are always > preceded by 0x, so that more systematic parsing of output might be > possible in the future. Have you considered that for ufids? > > 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? > > Thanks, > > Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
