The main issue is that I wanted to pull L2 header composition out of CFM into it's caller. This will allow us to remove the eth_src from the cfm configuration and prevent the ugliness which occurs when we push the eth_src from the bridge to ofproto through the cfm configuration. We could alternatively put it in the cfm header file if you prefer.
Ethan On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:32:53PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> This seems to be more stylistically correct. > > Is there any more rationale than this? It's never been my goal to > have *every* protocol definition in packets.h, although I can see how > you got that idea. We used to have better counterexamples than we do > now, in the lib/dhcp.h and lib/stp.h libraries. > > I can think of a few reasons to put declarations in packets.h instead > of in a protocol-specific header: > > - The declarations are widely used and so there's little > benefit in making the users include additional headers. > > - There's a clean logical separation in our tree between a > protocol and implementations of it, but it doesn't seem > worthwhile (yet) to make a new header file for just this > protocol. > > - There just isn't another good place in the tree to put the > declarations. > > But I don't know which of these applies to cfm. It seems that, so far > at least, only cfm.c really needs these definitions, and so cfm.c > seems like an OK place, to me. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
