On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:58:35AM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > + if (!port && sf->field->id == MFF_REG6) {
>
> Is there a reason you're using MFF_REG6 instead of MFF_IN_PORT?
MFF_LOG_INPORT, which is what I want, wasn't available here. We've run
into this problem before. I'm going to propose moving the MFF_LOG_*
definitions into a new header. I'll post a v3 of the series that does
that.
> > + sf = ofpact_put_SET_FIELD(ofpacts);
> > + sf->field = mf_from_id(MFF_IN_PORT);
> > + bitwise_put(UINT64_MAX, &sf->mask, sf->field->n_bytes, 0,
> > + sf->field->n_bits);
>
> Is there a reason to use this instead of bitwise_one(), which seems to
> have clearer intent? The code right above doesn't do it either, so
> I'm just curious if it's not equivalent.
bitwise_one() works nicely too. Previously, I guess I used
bitwise_put() because it had the same form as the bitwise_put() in the
pairing of value and mask:
bitwise_put(port, &sf->value,
sf->field->n_bytes, 0, sf->field->n_bits);
bitwise_put(UINT64_MAX, &sf->mask,
sf->field->n_bytes, 0, sf->field->n_bits);
and then in this case I just cut-and-paste the code.
I'll change them both to bitwise_one().
> Acked-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com>
Thanks, I'll post v3 in a few minutes.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
