On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:29:27PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:40:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > From: Isaku Yamahata <[email protected]> > > > > set_field action needs more than 64 bits value unlike nx_reg_load action. > > This is preparation for set_field action. mf_value will be used later. > > > > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > Presumably the goal is to make ofpact_reg_load able to set any subset of > a field, not just a 64-bit subset. For this, it would seem more natural > to use union mf_subvalue instead of union mf_value. Then > nxm_execute_reg_load() would become a single call to > mf_write_subfield(), rather than (as seen in patch 3/5) a conditional.
I spoke with Yamahata-san and clarified the motivation for using mf_value. It was: * To allow the storage of IPv6 addresses which require more than 64bits and; * To allow use of portions of meta-flow.c Having looked over the code I'm not convinced that it aims to set field subsets. Do you believe that should be an aim? > My hope here is that ofpact_reg_load can be completely uniform across > NXAST_REG_LOAD and OFPAT12_SET_FIELD, except in the translation to and > from OpenFlow actions. That does sound like a good goal to me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
