Yes, please give it a try. On Aug 22, 2013 11:30 AM, "Alex Wang" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can I have a try and see how cleaner it would be if we use "uint16_t"? > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fixes the following sparse warnings introduced by commit 7c35397c84d >> (ofproto: Start ofport allocation from the previous max after restart.) >> >> ofproto.c:2106:58: warning: restricted ofp_port_t degrades to integer >> ofproto.c:2107:40: warning: restricted ofp_port_t degrades to integer >> ofproto.c:2107:40: warning: restricted ofp_port_t degrades to integer >> ofproto.c:2107:38: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base >> types) >> ofproto.c:2107:38: expected restricted ofp_port_t [usertype] >> alloc_port_no >> ofproto.c:2107:38: got int >> >> This fix makes the code uglier. Maybe we should make 'alloc_port_no' >> and 'max_ports' "uint16_t"s instead of "ofp_port_t"s. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> >> --- >> ofproto/ofproto.c | 8 +++++--- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto.c b/ofproto/ofproto.c >> index 947b8c6..468e08e 100644 >> --- a/ofproto/ofproto.c >> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto.c >> @@ -2103,9 +2103,11 @@ init_ports(struct ofproto *p) >> netdev = ofport_open(p, &ofproto_port, &pp); >> if (netdev) { >> ofport_install(p, netdev, &pp); >> - if (ofproto_port.ofp_port < p->max_ports) { >> - p->alloc_port_no = MAX(p->alloc_port_no, >> - ofproto_port.ofp_port); >> + if (ofp_to_u16(ofproto_port.ofp_port) >> + < ofp_to_u16(p->max_ports)) { >> + p->alloc_port_no = u16_to_ofp( >> + MAX(ofp_to_u16(p->alloc_port_no), >> + ofp_to_u16(ofproto_port.ofp_port))); >> } >> } >> } >> -- >> 1.7.10.4 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> > >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
