On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:20:20AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > While reading nxm_field_by_header() I realized that we've got a terrible
> > existing mistake in our hashing. Ugh. I'll send a fix, which we'll want
> > to pre-apply (and maybe ba
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:13:16PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> Currently we treat the entire NXM/OXM header, including length,
>> as an ID to define a field. However, this does not allow for
>> multiple lengths of a particular field.
>>
>> If a
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:13:16PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> Currently we treat the entire NXM/OXM header, including length,
> as an ID to define a field. However, this does not allow for
> multiple lengths of a particular field.
>
> If a field has been marked as variable, we should ignore the l
Currently we treat the entire NXM/OXM header, including length,
as an ID to define a field. However, this does not allow for
multiple lengths of a particular field.
If a field has been marked as variable, we should ignore the length
when looking up the field and only use the class and field. We
co
