> On Aug 29, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Gregory Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8/29/2019 3:25 PM, Justin Pettit wrote: >>> On Aug 29, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Greg Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> diff --git a/datapath/flow.c b/datapath/flow.c >>> index 083288f..92fc6ac 100644 >>> --- a/datapath/flow.c >>> +++ b/datapath/flow.c >>> @@ -529,6 +529,7 @@ static int key_extract_l3l4(struct sk_buff *skb, struct >>> sw_flow_key *key) >>> offset = nh->frag_off & htons(IP_OFFSET); >>> if (offset) { >>> key->ip.frag = OVS_FRAG_TYPE_LATER; >>> + memset(&key->tp, 0, sizeof(key->tp)); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> if (nh->frag_off & htons(IP_MF) || >>> @@ -647,8 +648,11 @@ static int key_extract_l3l4(struct sk_buff *skb, >>> struct sw_flow_key *key) >>> return error; >>> } >>> >>> - if (key->ip.frag == OVS_FRAG_TYPE_LATER) >>> + if (key->ip.frag == OVS_FRAG_TYPE_LATER) { >>> + memset(&key->tp, 0, sizeof(key->tp)); >>> return 0; >>> + } >>> +#ifdef HAVE_SKB_GSO_UDP >> My system's kernel is too new to be built against an OVS this old, but I >> noticed this patch for OVS versions 2.5 through 2.9 introduce this #ifdef >> without a corresponding #endif. Was this intentional? Does it even build? >> >> --Justin >> >> > Conflict resolutions error - I'll probably have to resend branches 2.8 > through 2.5.
Thanks. Can you please at least compile-check them before sending out v2? --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
