On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org> wrote:
> >>> > 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. > >> > > Yeah, you're right, it does matching on the bit. It's setting the whole > value, which only works because this was the first use of the field. It'll > be needed before we add a second bit. > > > > I can add it now. I was mostly just being lazy. It may be next week > before I get to it, though. I'm traveling all week and hacking time is hit > or miss. > > I definitely understand. :-) If you can do that, it would be great, but > I'm okay if we want to add the support once we clearly document and test > the capability in OVS itself. I've sent Joe a message confirming whether > this is indeed supported. > Joe has a couple of patches on the list. I checked with on IRC and it sounds like there's still an issue he's working through. Right now I'm planning on holding off on adding that unless those fixes are completed before I post this next revision. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
