On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > On 21 March 2016 at 16:40, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 March 2016 at 07:54, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Update the "ct_commit;" logical flow action to optionally take >>>>> one or two parameters, setting the value of "ct_mark" or "ct_label". >>>>> Supported ct_commit syntax now includes: >>>>> >>>>> ct_commit; >>>>> ct_commit(); >>>>> ct_commit(ct_mark=1); >>>>> ct_commit(ct_label=1); >>>>> ct_commit(ct_mark=1, ct_label=1); >>>>> >>>>> Setting ct_mark via this type of logical flow results in an OpenFlow >>>>> flow that looks like: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> actions=ct(commit,zone=NXM_NX_REG5[0..15],exec(set_field:0x1->ct_mark)) >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, setting ct_label results in: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> actions=ct(commit,zone=NXM_NX_REG5[0..15],exec(set_field:0x1->ct_label)) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this feature makes it tricky to share zones with other stateful >>>> additions. If you want to commit only once for all stateful services, then >>>> set-field for ct_mark and ct_label will need to be loaded to registers in >>>> advance, which I guess would mean that you loose 2 registers for this >>>> purpose. >>>> >>> >>> Do you have any thoughts on how I could change this to cause you less >>> pain on the LB series? The next patch shows how this is used. In >>> practice, it only uses ct_label. >>> >> >> I seem to recall that you had used 2 registers, but then Ben pointed out >> that you could just use 2 bits of a single register. The next patch only >> uses a single bit of ct_label, so it could just use another bit out of an >> "OVN bit flags" register to signal the value of ct_label. >> > > Right. So I will use 2 bits of a single register. I had a quick look at > the 3rd patch (and its different versions). So looks like ct_mark will not > be used? And only one bit in ct_label is used. I wonder whether the action > setting here in the logical flows should be a macro instead of INT. The > macro will signify a single bit. >
That's right. It's currently only using a single bit of ct_label and not using ct_mark at all. I was just trying add more generally useful Logical_Flow support for any future needs. I'm not sure what you mean by using a macro here. Can you expand on the idea? -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
