On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:20:35PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: >> The flow extraction code for IPv6 has some deviations from both the >> kernel version and other protocols in userspace. These differences >> make it difficult to compare the two for correctness. This updates >> the code to be more similar to the others in design and style. There >> is no functional change. > > Two of the ofpbuf_try_pull() calls have a missing ! in the test.
Fixed, thanks. > > In parse_icmpv6(), now that I've actually looked at struct > nd_neighbor_solicit, I question whether using it is actually helpful. > It's just an icmp6_hdr followed by an in6_addr. We could just pull > the in6_addr ourselves and save the trouble of subtracting the length > of the icmp6_hdr. I hadn't looked at struct nd_neighbor_solicit before either. Now that I have, I agree that it doesn't add much value so I've dropped it. > > Many pointers could be declared "const" in this code. Good idea. > > This changes a "return false" at the end of parse_icmpv6() to "return > true". Isn't that a functional change? It just affects whether the L7 pointer in the ofpbuf gets set but nothing cares about it for ICMP so there's no actual change. I changed my mind about this though, so I put it back to the original version. > > There is duplicated code for IPPROTO_TCP and IPPROTO_UDP that we could > factor out. I've done that now. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_openvswitch.org
