Should we also reserve some range of NXM_NX numbers after 114 for potential
future registers, say 115-118 at least? Other register types do not have this
problem as they have their own classes of numbers.
Jarno
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote:
>
> xxreg2 and xxreg3 had the same NXM_NX_* names as xxreg0 and xxreg1,
> correspondingly.
>
> Found by inspection.
>
> CC: Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org>
> Fixes: b23ada8eecfd ("Introduce 128-bit xxregs.")
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org>
> ---
> include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h b/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
> index 966ff7f..ef07561 100644
> --- a/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
> +++ b/include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h
> @@ -940,8 +940,8 @@ enum OVS_PACKED_ENUM mf_field_id {
> * Access: read/write.
> * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG0(111) since v2.6. <0>
> * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG1(112) since v2.6. <1>
> - * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG0(113) since v2.6. <2>
> - * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG1(114) since v2.6. <3>
> + * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG2(113) since v2.6. <2>
> + * NXM: NXM_NX_XXREG3(114) since v2.6. <3>
> * OXM: none.
> */
> MFF_XXREG0,
> --
> 2.1.4
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
