> > > > Any thoughts on this? Should I write an equivalent of flow_wc_map() and > use > > it in xlate_wc_finish() > > or we use a stricter version i.e. flow_wildcards_init_for_packet() and use > > in revalidate_ukey__? > > My big problem for review here is that I don't understand the motivation > for moving the code around. Sure, it *works*, but why? Why did you > think to do it?
The reason to move the code from xlate_wc_finish() to revalidate_ukey__() is as it caused quite a few unit tests to fail. After looking at the failures I notice that Megaflow is not matching the 'expected' value. For e.g. failure for test 0738 is: -Megaflow: recirc_id=0,eth,ip,tun_id=0,tun_src=1.1.1.1,tun_dst=2.2.2.2,tun_tos=3,tun_fl ags=-df-csum-key,in_port=1,nw_ecn=3,nw_frag=no +Megaflow: recirc_id=0,eth,ip,tun_src=1.1.1.1,tun_dst=2.2.2.2,tun_tos=3,tun_flags=-df-c sum-key,in_port=1,nw_ecn=3,nw_frag=no flow_wildcards_init_for_packet() unwildcards 'tun_id' only when either FLOW_TNL_F_KEY is set in tunnel flags or tun->ip_dst is not set & tun_id is non-zero. However the 'expected' Megaflow itself is not correct in this case as tun_flags = -key and tun_dst is set, so tun_id should have been wildcarded but it is not. Let me know if it makes sense. Warm Regards, Vishal Ajmera _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
