> On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > 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.
There actually are some tests written that are executed when you run "make check-kernel", but it has to load the kernel module locally and run them. Those tests don't do bitwise manipulation, though. Obviously, userspace conntrack would make all of this easier. Daniele plans to start working on those patches again soon. > 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? In general, I think its nicer to provide a completed interface if it doesn't add too much complexity. (I don't think it requires much (if any) more code since we have functions that parse bit-level setting.) Also, the intent of the next patch is really to do flag manipulation and not setting a 128-bit field. However, there should have been some bit-level tests for the functionality that's already checked in, so I'm happy to just add the tests and this flexibility to my to-do list. --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
