On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 04:27:04PM -0800, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote:
> 
> > Until now, formatting the "next" action has always required including
> > the table number, because the action struct didn't include enough context
> > so that the formatter could decide whether the table number was the next
> > table or some other table.  This is more or less OK, but an upcoming commit
> > will add a "pipeline" field to the "next" action, which means that the same
> > policy there would require that the pipeline always be printed.  That's a
> > little obnoxious because 99+% of the time, the pipeline to be printed is
> > the same pipeline that the flow is in and printing it would be distracting.
> > So it's better to store some context to help with formatting.  This commit
> > begins adopting that policy for the existing table number field.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> >
> 
> Acked-by: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys....@gmail.com>

Thanks for the review.

> One comment inline.
>
> > +    int table = ctx->pp->cur_ltable + 1;
> > +    if (lexer_match(ctx->lexer, LEX_T_LPAREN)
> > +        && (!lexer_force_int(ctx->lexer, &table) ||
> > +            !lexer_force_match(ctx->lexer, LEX_T_RPAREN))) {
> > +        return;
> > +    }
> >
> > -        ovnact_put_NEXT(ctx->ovnacts)->ltable = ltable;
> > -    } else {
> > -        if (ctx->pp->cur_ltable < ctx->pp->n_tables) {
> > -            ovnact_put_NEXT(ctx->ovnacts)->ltable = ctx->pp->cur_ltable
> > + 1;
> > -        } else {
> > -            lexer_error(ctx->lexer,
> > -                        "\"next\" action not allowed in last table.");
> > -        }
> > +    if (table >= ctx->pp->n_tables) {
> > +        lexer_error(ctx->lexer,
> > +                    "\"next\" action cannot advance beyond table %d.",
> > +                    ctx->pp->n_tables - 1);
> >
> 
> Should there be a "return;" here?

It's better with the return, so I added it.  The lack of a return was
harmless though since the error was still being recorded and the
appended action would be ignored.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to