b On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org> wrote:
> > > On Mar 21, 2016, at 7:54 AM, 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)) > > It doesn't look like we have any test cases, but I believe the exec() > command supports bit-wise setting of the "ct_label" and "ct_mark" fields. > It seems like it would be nice to be able to do bit-level twiddling. For > example, in the next patch it might be nice to support one or both of the > following formats: > > ct_commit(ct_label[0]=1) > ct_commit(ct_label=0x1/0x1) > > What do you think? > Yeah, no tests. I honestly wasn't sure how to test it since we can't use ct() in the test suite. I was hoping that we could start adding some tests for this stuff once the userspace conntrack patches go in. Bit-level twiddling would indeed be nice. I didn't have a need for it in this series, though. Are you OK with it coming as a future enhancement, or would you like to see it now? -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
