> On Jul 27, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 02:05:22PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: >> >>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:30:49PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Justin Pettit <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c >>>> index d546b150b938..26c2357007b2 100644 >>>> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c >>>> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c >>>> @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ frozen_state_hash(const struct frozen_state *state) >>>> hash = hash_bytes64(ALIGNED_CAST(const uint64_t *, >>>> state->action_set), >>>> state->action_set_len, hash); >>>> } >>>> + hash = hash_int(state->ofpacts_len, hash); >>>> if (state->ofpacts_len) { >>>> hash = hash_bytes64(ALIGNED_CAST(const uint64_t *, state->ofpacts), >>>> state->ofpacts_len, hash); >>> >>> Can you explain the benefit of this change? hash_bytes64() already uses >>> the number of bytes hashed as one of the inputs to the hash. >> >> hash_bytes64() is only called if the action length is non-zero. > > Yes, but even so, the hash should still distinguish states with no > actions from states with actions.
Yes, I agree. >> However, I was on the fence about making this change, since it wasn't >> clear if it would be that valuable. The main reason was just to make >> it consistent with how "action_set" is handled right above it. >> >> I'm happy to drop the patch if you prefer. > > I'd be more inclined to remove the hash of action_set_len, because it is > unnecessary for the same reason that hash of ofpacts_len is unnecessary. I'll go ahead and do that. I'll send out a v2, since I need to respin the next patch in the series due to a build issue on some versions of gcc. --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
