Yes, it is possible with more hacking on the test scripts. Omitting them
would make the output easier to read in general -- having more (0/0) does
not add more information. In general we are moving in a direction of not
output unnecessary information, removing output mask of 255.255.255.255,
for example.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
> Can't you just add skb_mark to the input?
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > This helps to keep the test easy: Input is the same as output.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >> > Handling of missing attributes in netlink can be tricky and turns out
> >> > to be error prone. The value (savings in netlink bandwidth) does not
> >> > seem to be significant enough to justify allowing them. This patch
> >> > series make both kernel and userspace always export priority and
> >> > skb_mark attribute. There will be follow on patches in the
> >> > direction of making all attributes explicit.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > lib/odp-util.c | 62
> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >> > tests/ofproto-dpif.at | 18 +++++++-------
> >> > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/lib/odp-util.c b/lib/odp-util.c
> >> > index 3c3063d..1f7db2f 100644
> >> > --- a/lib/odp-util.c
> >> > +++ b/lib/odp-util.c
> >> > @@ -926,6 +926,42 @@ odp_mask_attr_is_exact(const struct nlattr *ma)
> >> > return is_exact;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static bool
> >> > +ommit_format(enum ovs_key_attr attr, const struct nlattr *a,
> >> > + const struct nlattr *ma)
> >> > +{
> >> > + switch (attr) {
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_PRIORITY:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_SKB_MARK:
> >> > + if (!nl_attr_get_u32(a)) {
> >> > + if ((!ma) || !nl_attr_get_u32(ma)) {
> >> > + return true; /* Omit output 0 (no mask) or 0/0
> */
> >> > + }
> >> > + }
> >> > + break;
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_UNSPEC:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ENCAP:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_TUNNEL:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_IN_PORT:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ETHERNET:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_VLAN:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ETHERTYPE:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_IPV4:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_IPV6:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_TCP:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_UDP:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ICMP:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ICMPV6:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ARP:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_ND:
> >> > + case OVS_KEY_ATTR_MPLS:
> >> > + case __OVS_KEY_ATTR_MAX:
> >> > + default:
> >> > + break;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + return false;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> Does it actually make sense to omit printing of these fields still?
> >> After all, we print fully wildcarded other fields and this is really
> >> debugging output.
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
