On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 08:23:06PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> This bit of build_lswitch_flows() would probably benefit from {...}
> notation:
> if (op->lsp_addrs[i].n_ipv6_addrs == 1) {
> ds_put_format(&match, "nd.target == %s",
> op->lsp_addrs[i].ipv6_addrs[0].addr_s);
> } else {
> ds_put_cstr(&match, "(");
> for (size_t j = 0; j < op->lsp_addrs[i].n_ipv6_addrs;
> j++) {
> ds_put_format(&match, "nd.target == %s || ",
> op->lsp_addrs[i].ipv6_addrs[j].addr_s);
> }
> ds_chomp(&match, ' ');
> ds_chomp(&match, '|');
> ds_chomp(&match, '|');
> ds_chomp(&match, ' ');
> ds_put_cstr(&match, ")");
> }
Also it might be worth noting that {} notation allows a trailing comma,
e.g. "ip.dst == {1.2.3.4, }" is valid. This might simplify code very
slightly in a few places.
I've thought about inventing syntax that would allow this for || and &&
also, e.g. maybe a syntax for "a || b || c", such as "||(a, b, c)" so
that "||(a, b, c, )" could be accepted too. This falls somewhere along
the line from "that's a good idea!" to "that's a dumb idea and you're
dumb for suggesting it", so this is the first time I've brought it up.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
