The purpose of the packets library is not carved in stone, but I've been regarding it mainly as a grab bag for stuff that doesn't have a clear place elsewhere in the tree. "benign" packets fall into that category I think, but for LACP and CCM it seems less clear--we have LACP and CFM files. Anything that is esoteric and protocol specific would seem well suited to go into protocol-specific .c and .h files when we already have them. Not sure why we'd banish it to some generic place.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:29:54AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > I guess I'm not fully understanding the purpose of the packets > library. The definition of ccm messages is in its header file. It > would seem natural to me for composition and parsing to be there as > well. Furthermore, this is how it's done for lacp and "benign" > packets. It seems like a good place to put esoteric protocol specific > logic that is only interesting in creating the packets freeing up the > caller to deal with the logic of what actually belongs in there. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:32:56PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> This cleans up the CFM library a bit by pushing ccm composition > >> details into the packets library. > > > > I don't yet see the benefit to moving composing (patch 4) and parsing > > (patch 5) CCM packets from cfm into packets. ?Can you explain? > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
