Further research indicates that I still had the story wrong. Initially
it was not maskable but Simon Horman made it maskable with commit
32455024044444 (OXM: Allow masking of IPv6 Flow Label) without updating
the comment. I guess the OXM prefix on that commit message subject
means that he believed that OXM required the field to be maskable, which
brings us back to the OpenFlow specification.
This is in fact mentioned in NEWS for 1.9.0, haha:
- OpenFlow:
- Allow bitwise masking for SHA and THA fields in ARP, SLL and TLL
fields in IPv6 neighbor discovery messages, and IPv6 flow label.
Oh well.
Anyway, I pushed it to master as follows.
--8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8--
From: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:17:41 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] nicira-ext: Fix incorrect description of NXM_NX_IPV6_LABEL
as non-maskable.
Commit 32455024044444 (OXM: Allow masking of IPv6 Flow Label) made the
IPv6 flow label field fully maskable but did not update the comment to say
so.
EXT-101.
CC: Jean Tourrilhes <j...@hpl.hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
Acked-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com>
---
include/openflow/nicira-ext.h | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/openflow/nicira-ext.h b/include/openflow/nicira-ext.h
index de5ff6a..ca272fd 100644
--- a/include/openflow/nicira-ext.h
+++ b/include/openflow/nicira-ext.h
@@ -1717,8 +1717,9 @@ OFP_ASSERT(sizeof(struct nx_action_output_reg) == 24);
*
* Format: 20-bit IPv6 flow label in least-significant bits.
*
- * Masking: Not maskable. */
-#define NXM_NX_IPV6_LABEL NXM_HEADER (0x0001, 27, 4)
+ * Masking: Fully maskable. */
+#define NXM_NX_IPV6_LABEL NXM_HEADER (0x0001, 27, 4)
+#define NXM_NX_IPV6_LABEL_W NXM_HEADER_W(0x0001, 27, 4)
/* The ECN of the IP header.
*
--
1.7.10.4
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
