That seems like a reasonable idea to me. It's obviously not strictly
necessary, but it's nice to be able to deal with contiguous ranges.
--Justin
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote:
>
> Should we also reserve some range of NXM_NX numbers after 114 for potential
> future registers, say 115-118 at least? Other register types do not have this
> problem as they have their own classes of numbers.
>
> Jarno
>
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote:
>>
>> xxreg2 and xxreg3 had the same NXM_NX_* names as xxreg0 and xxreg1,
>> correspondingly.
>>
>> Found by inspection.
>>
>> CC: Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org>
>> Fixes: b23ada8eecfd ("Introduce 128-bit xxregs.")
>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org>
>> ---
>> include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
>> b/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
>> index 966ff7f..ef07561 100644
>> --- a/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
>> +++ b/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
>> @@ -940,8 +940,8 @@ enum OVS_PACKED_ENUM mf_field_id {
>> * Access: read/write.
>> * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG0(111) since v2.6. <0>
>> * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG1(112) since v2.6. <1>
>> - * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG0(113) since v2.6. <2>
>> - * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG1(114) since v2.6. <3>
>> + * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG2(113) since v2.6. <2>
>> + * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG3(114) since v2.6. <3>
>> * OXM: none.
>> */
>> MFF_XXREG0,
>> --
>> 2.1.4
>>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
