On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Wenyu Zhang <wen...@vmware.com> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Wenyu Zhang <wen...@vmware.com>
>>> Acked-by: Romain Lenglet <rleng...@vmware.com>
>>
>> This patch renumbers OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_OAM and
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_GENEVE_OPTS. Is that really OK?
>>
> It is not ok.
> There are another fixes to kernel part which I was going to do before pushing
> this patch to master.
>
> Thanks,
> Pravin.
>
> Wenyu: I can move the new items after OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_GENEVE_OPTS if it
> is not OK.
> And I am wondering why it is not OK? Is there any case that the renumbering
> will cause issue?
If we renumber kernel interface enum, OVS does not work if there is
mismatch userspace and ovs kernel module versions. So to maintain
compatibility we add new enum at the end.
> Thanks a lot.
>
>> @@ -338,10 +345,12 @@ enum ovs_tunnel_key_attr {
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV4_DST, /* be32 dst IP address. */
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TOS, /* u8 Tunnel IP ToS. */
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TTL, /* u8 Tunnel IP TTL. */
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_DONT_FRAGMENT, /* No argument, set DF. */
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_CSUM, /* No argument. CSUM packet.
>> */
>> + OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TP_SRC, /* be16 src Transport Port.
>> */
>> + OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TP_DST, /* be16 dst Transport Port.
>> */
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_OAM, /* No argument, OAM frame. */
>> OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_GENEVE_OPTS, /* Array of Geneve options */
>> __OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_MAX
>> };
>> #define OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_MAX (__OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_MAX - 1)
>>
>> I'm continuing to look at it.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
