Ben, Will you review this, or should I just drop this?
Jarno > On Sep 18, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> wrote: > > >> On Sep 18, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com >> <mailto:b...@nicira.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:54:21PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>> Update the comment in ukey_revalidate() to reflect the fact that the >>> mask in ukey is not the datapath mask, but the originally translated >>> flow wildcards. >>> >>> Use flow_wildcards_has_extra() instead of open coding equivalent (but >>> different) functionality. The old form and the code in >>> flow_wildcards_has_extra() ((dp | wc != dp) and (dp & wc != wc), >>> respecively) give the same result: >>> >>> dp wc (dp | wc != dp) (dp & wc != wc) >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> 0 0 (0 | 0 != 0) (false) (0 & 0 != 0) (false) >>> 0 1 (0 | 1 != 0) (true) (0 & 1 != 1) (true) >>> 1 0 (1 | 0 != 1) (false) (1 & 0 != 0) (false) >>> 1 1 (1 | 1 != 1) (false) (1 & 1 != 1) (false) >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com >>> <mailto:jrajaha...@nicira.com>> >> >> Does this change the behavior of the code at all; that is, is it a bug >> fix? I suspect not, but it'd be nice to know. > > Just a refactor, no behavior change. > > Jarno > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
