Thanks for the review, I pushed this series. Ethan
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:20, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:00:25PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 18:58, Ethan Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +static struct nx_action_bundle * >> >>> +parse_bundle_actions(char *actions) >> >>> +{ >> >>> + ? ?struct nx_action_bundle *nab; >> >>> + ? ?struct ofpbuf b; >> >>> + >> >>> + ? ?ofpbuf_init(&b, 0); >> >>> + ? ?bundle_parse(&b, actions); >> >>> + ? ?nab = ofpbuf_steal_data(&b); >> >>> + ? ?ofpbuf_uninit(&b); >> >>> + >> >>> + ? ?if (ntohs(nab->n_slaves) > BD_MAX_SLAVES) { >> >>> + ? ? ? ?ovs_fatal(0, "At most %u slaves are supported", BD_MAX_SLAVES); >> >>> + ? ?} >> >> >> >> This implies that bundle_parse() will parse more than BD_MAX_SLAVES >> >> slaves. ?Shouldn't that be checked in bundle_parse() itself? >> > >> > I'm not sure I fully understand this comment. ?Hopefully the >> > incremental I send out will make it clear that BD_MAX_SLAVES is only >> > relevant to the testing code, and that the bundle library has it's own >> > maximum (2048 slaves). ?I'll update bundle_parse to enforce this >> > limit. >> >> Oops, now that I look at the code, bundle_parse() does enforce that >> only BUNDLE_MAX_SLAVES are used. If there are more it simply >> truncates. I suppose I could have it ovs_fatal() out. I'll leave it >> how it is pending a comment. > > It's fine, thanks. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
