On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:09:25AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 03:26:38PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:37:47PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > The intention is that, as each OpenFlow 1.1 feature is added to Open > > > vSwitch, the corresponding protocol definitions will be broken up this > > > way: > > > > > > - Definitions that are the same in OF1.0 and OF1.1 will retain the "OFP" > > > or "ofp" prefix and move to openflow-common.h. > > > > > > - Definitions that are specific to OF1.0 will be renamed with an "OFP10" > > > or "ofp10" prefix and stay in openflow-1.0.h. > > > > > > - Definitions that are specific to OF1.1 will be renamed with an "OFP11" > > > or "ofp11" prefix and move to openflow-1.1.h. > > > > I am wondering how a hypothetical definition that is shared by OF1.1 > > and OF1.2 but not OF1.0 might be shared. It may or may not conflict > > with a OF1.0 definition. > > > > I don't have anything in particular in mind, but as more OF versions are > > added it seems like a plausible scenario. > > I've thought about that a little too. I don't have a completely general > solution in mind. One thought, however, is that OF1.1 and OF1.2 are > much more compatible than OF1.0 and OF1.1. So, I'm sort of inclined > toward the following as a starting point: > > - Common to all versions: OFP_. > > - OF1.0 only: OFP10_. > > - OF1.1 only, or OF1.1 and OF1.2: OFP11_. > > - OF1.2 only: OFP12_.
Yes, I think that is entirely reasonable. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
