Thanks Simon for your input. I think we are on the same page now.
I have sent out a patch to address this yesterday. Please feel free to
review it.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
I don't
I don't think OFPTC11_TABLE_MISS_MASK is a possible value. It is there to
simply indicate there are 2 bits used for miss configuration. May be it
should be outside of the enum definition?
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
It seems convenient and in keeping
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
I don't think OFPTC11_TABLE_MISS_MASK is a possible value. It is there to
simply indicate there are 2 bits used for miss configuration. May be it
should be outside of the enum definition?
I agree that OFPTC11_TABLE_MISS_MASK isn't a
It seems convenient and in keeping with other Open vSwtich code to use enum
ofp11_table_config as the type of the config field in struct
ofputil_table_mod.
Although the presence of OFPTC11_TABLE_MISS_MASK and need to use it as a
mask seems to make things a little untidy. And there only seems to
