On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:13:19PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> It is technically correct to send the entire maximum length of
>> a field when it is variable length. However, it is awkward to
>> do so and not what one would naively expect. Since receivers will
>> internally zero-extend fields, we can do the opposite and trim
>> off leading zeros. This results in encodings that are generally
>> sensible without specific knowledge of what is being transmitted.
>> (Of course, other implementations, such as controllers, may know
>> exactly the expected length of the field and are free to encode
>> it that way even if it has leading zeros.)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com>
>
> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
>
> I personally find this implementation of mf_field_len() easier to read
> (I know that's terribly nitpicky):
>
> int len = field_len(mf, value);
> if (mask && !is_all_ones(mask, mf->n_bytes)) {
> int mask_len = field_len(mf, mask);
> len = MAX(len, mask_len);
> }
> return len;
That's fine with me, it doesn't bother me much either way.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
