Looks good. It might be nice to add a comment stating that only tunnel uses mark right now, since it's not inherent that mark's are specific to tunnels. It might act as a good reminder later if/when we use mark other places.
Acked-by: Justin Pettit <[email protected]> Thanks! --Justin On Aug 1, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Jesse Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > The tunnel lookup uses the skb_mark as part of the port find process > but it isn't unmasked along with the other fields. This adds it to > the list of significant fields. > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > --- > ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > index 18b0257..6672b46 100644 > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > @@ -2327,6 +2327,7 @@ xlate_actions(struct xlate_in *xin, struct xlate_out > *xout) > > if (tnl_port_should_receive(&ctx.xin->flow)) { > memset(&wc->masks.tunnel, 0xff, sizeof wc->masks.tunnel); > + memset(&wc->masks.skb_mark, 0xff, sizeof wc->masks.skb_mark); > } > if (ctx.xbridge->has_netflow) { > netflow_mask_wc(flow, wc); > -- > 1.8.1.2 > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
