Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 08:47:56AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>> +/* A set of mf_field_ids. */ >>> +struct mf_bitmap { >>> + unsigned long bm[BITMAP_N_LONGS(MFF_N_IDS)]; >>> +}; >>> +#define MF_BITMAP_INITIALIZER { { [0] = 0 } } >> >> Is this different from just { { 0 } } ? > > It has the same semantics, but it suppresses GCC warnings about > only partially initializing an array. > >>> @@ -270,9 +276,9 @@ struct mf_field { >>> * Also, some field types are tranparently mapped to each other via the >>> * struct flow (like vlan and dscp/tos fields), so each variant supports >>> * all protocols. */ >>> - enum ofputil_protocol usable_protocols; /* If fully/cidr masked. */ >>> + uint32_t usable_protocols; /* If fully/cidr masked. */ >>> /* If partially/non-cidr masked. */ >>> - enum ofputil_protocol usable_protocols_bitwise; >>> + uint32_t usable_protocols_bitwise; >> >> These seem unrelated changes? > > This is actually a sticky point. Before this commit, meta-flow.h > includes ofp-util.h, to get "enum ofputil_protocol" for these two > members. After this commit, ofp-util.h includes meta-flow.h, to get > struct mf_bitmap. The circular dependency causes a problem. The best > solution I came up with was to change the "enum ofputil_protocol" > members to uint32_t. It's not a great solution. Do you have a good > idea? Can the enum be forward declared here instead? Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
