On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:59:11PM -0800, Justin Pettit wrote: > It's no longer necessary to maintain a "nw_tos_mask" wildcard member, > since we only care about completely wildcarding the DSCP and ECN > portions of the IP TOS field. This commit makes that change. It also > goes a bit further in internally using "tos" to refer to the entire TOS > field (ie, DSCP and ECN). We must still refer to the DSCP portions as > "nw_tos" externally through OpenFlow 1.0, since that's the convention it > uses.
I'm not sure that we care about using exactly the same naming as the OpenFlow 1.0 document. Our header file diverged years ago and now I imagine that the diff is practically the whole file. Do you think that FWW_* bits are superior to a mask in this case? It's not clear-cut, to me, since it's a matter of a single byte and both fields are part of that byte. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
