On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:48:33PM +0000, Pritesh Kothari (pritkoth) wrote: >> >> On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:00:46AM +0000, Pritesh Kothari (pritkoth) wrote: >>>> any insight into this would be greatly appreciated, alternatively i was >>>> thinking >>>> of adding the code shown below, outside the outer most for loop in tnl_find >>>> to add the 8 matches mentioned above, but then tnl_match_map can?t exactly >>>> differentiate these cases from original 12 above, so not sure about it. >>>> >>>> for (in_key_flow = 0; in_key_flow < 2; in_key_flow++) { >>>> for (in_nsp_flow = 0; in_nsp_flow < 2; in_nsp_flow++) { >>>> for (in_nsi_flow = 0; ip_nsi_flow < 2; ip_nsi_flow++) { >>> >>> We probably don't want so many nested loops--48 tests is wasteful. I'd >>> suggest instead maintaining a uint64_t with a 1-bit in each position >>> where there is any match, and then iterating through the 1-bits with >>> bitwise functions. >> >> sounds good to me, will do this and post a patch for this in rfc for >> nsh soon. > > OK. Is a new patch series almost ready then? It seems like it's been a > long time since the last update.
actually it is almost ready, i was working on a kernel module which could go upstream as well replace the compat stuff in the earlier patch sets. Regards, Pritesh. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
