On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Ansis Atteka <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:05:24PM -0800, Ansis Atteka wrote: >>> This patch adds support for skb mark matching and set action. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ansis Atteka <[email protected]> >> >> I would increment FLOW_WC_SEQ to draw attention to some other places >> that might require updates. > I just incremented FLOW_WC_SEQ. It seems that nothing additional needs > to be done for skb marks. > > But, what got my attention, is that match_format() function accepts > 'priority' as argument. Nevertheless, it seems that two different > 'priorities' are being used interchangeably as argument in this > function: > 1. rule priority > 2, skb/packet priority > > 1. example usage of rule priority (16-bits) > match_format(&fsr.match, string, OFP_DEFAULT_PRIORITY); > or > match_format(&fs->match, string, fs->priority); > > > 2. example usage of skb priority (32-bits): > void > flow_format(struct ds *ds, const struct flow *flow) > { > struct match match; > > match_wc_init(&match, flow); > match_format(&match, ds, flow->skb_priority); > } > > > Maybe someone can shed some light on this, if I am understanding the > code correctly?
The latter one is wrong, more fallout of the logging change. It can just be converted to OFP_DEFAULT_PRIORITY. However, the names are unfortunately very close. Hopefully, most of the skb priorities are skb_priority now, it might be a good idea to call these rule_priority or similar. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
