On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 06:34:05PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:13:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > > I like the implementation approach used in ULONG_FOR_EACH_1 better than > > the one in PRESENT_OPT_FOR_EACH, since the user doesn't have to provide > > a scratch variable. Also it protects the macro arguments better. > > Actually ULONG_FOR_EACH_1 could be made to work with 32- or 64-bit maps > > just by changing "unsigned long" to "uint64_t" in its definition; maybe > > we should. > > I looked at converting ULONG_FOR_EACH_1 but decided against it since > it would introduce an additional branch (to decide whether to use > __builtin_ctz or __builtin_ctz_ll)
Really? It shouldn't, "__builtin_constant_p(n <= UINT32_MAX) && n <= UINT32_MAX" should be a compile-time constant. > and it is used in places that are very careful about that kind thing, > like the DPDK datapath. I just adopted the logic instead in > PRESENT_OPT_FOR_EACH. That's fine too. > > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > > Thanks a lot for all of the reviews (it turns out userspace has become > a lot more complicated since the last time that I did any serious work > on it...). True, and it's unfortunate, and if you have any ideas for making it simpler again I'm all ears! I like simple. > I'll wait a bit before pushing to look it over and give you a chance > to object to anything I said. I have the patch for Geneve option > support in the userspace datapath ready to go out once this in to > complete the initial needs for OVN. No objections here, apply it when you're satisfied. I'll be really happy to be able to use this in OVN. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
