On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:19AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > 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?
Certainly NXAST_REG_LOAD can modify part of a field rather than having to set an entire field (which is what I mean by a "subset", in case it wasn't clear). That's what mf_subvalue represents: some part of a field. (Naturally, it can represent a whole field, too, since that's just a special case of "part of a field".) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
