On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Guru Shetty <g...@ovn.org> wrote: > > Macro was probably wrong use of word. I mean to say, something like (very > crude): ct_commit(ct_label=MARK_FOR_DELETION) > > And you are only allowed to set certain values to ct_label and those > values only set certain bits. This will likely mean that we can share the > ct_mark and ct_label better across different features. >
I thought this had to do with playing nicely with your LB series, but now it sounds like putting more structure around the values we use for ct_label. Is that right? Do you see other uses for ct_label coming up? As for playing nicely with your LB series, it seems like we could already set a bit in a register and then use that to set ct_label in the next table. I don't think that would require any changes to these patches, unless they go in after your LB series. Let me know if I'm missing the point. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
