> There's no strong reason to define the macro to the value 1. It's
> just what I'm used to. I think I must have seen that it was a common
> style and followed it: it looks like about 95% of the /usr/include/*.h
> headers on my system here define their header guard macros to the
> value 1.
Fine
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > +#define NETFLOW_H
>
> According to CodingStyle, this should be "#define NETFLOW_H 1". Why
> do we need to add the "1" btw? are there some compilers that choke
> without it?
No, I'm not aware of any compilers that have difficulti
> +#define NETFLOW_H
According to CodingStyle, this should be "#define NETFLOW_H 1". Why
do we need to add the "1" btw? are there some compilers that choke
without it?
I didn't read the header file closely, just verified that it's the
same as it was in the old location.
Looks good,
Ethan
> +
An upcoming commit will introduce code outside of ofproto/netflow.c that
works with NetFlow packets, so we need the protocol definitions in a common
location.
---
lib/automake.mk |1 +
lib/netflow.h | 80 +
ofproto/netflow.c | 57 +-
