On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 02:19:03PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:05PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > >> 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?) > > > > Sorry about my delayed response. > > > > Hmm. I see a useful likeness between UUIDs and UFIDs, because they're > > both essentially random numbers (although a hash is somewhat different > > from a random UUID). I don't know enough about conn_labels to know > > whether they're also the same kind of thing. Do they contain structured > > data (e.g. extracted from a flow) or are they like UUIDs and UFIDs? If > > conn_labels qualitatively different, then maybe they should not be > > formatted the same way. > > Conn labels is a set of typically individual bits, meaning of which depends > on the system/controller configuration.
That seems quite different from UUID/UFIDs to me then, and I wouldn't want to lump them together just because they're all the same size. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
