On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote:
> I forgot to mention that this is the first post based against net-next.
>
> On 2 December 2014 at 18:56, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> <....snip...>
>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/flow.h b/net/openvswitch/flow.h
>> index a8b30f3..7f31dbf 100644
>> --- a/net/openvswitch/flow.h
>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/flow.h
>> @@ -197,6 +197,13 @@ struct sw_flow_match {
>> struct sw_flow_mask *mask;
>> };
>>
>> +#define MAX_UFID_LENGTH 256
>> +
>> +struct sw_flow_id {
>> + u32 ufid_len;
>> + u32 ufid[MAX_UFID_LENGTH / 4];
>> +};
>> +
>> struct sw_flow_actions {
>> struct rcu_head rcu;
>> u32 actions_len;
>
> Pravin, I changed the 'struct sw_flow_id' to the above after feedback
> from the previous round, but it doesn't seem quite right. Is this what
> you meant? Given that current ovs-vswitchd userspace only generates
> 128bit UFIDs, it seems wasteful to be allocating so much for this. Did
> you have in mind for this to be united with the unmasked_key?
I am fine with 128bits of ufid, we can extend it later if we need it.
But what do you mean by united unmasked key? Can you define the struct
here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
