> On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:38:21AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:38:21AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> >>
> >> xxreg2 and xxreg3 had the same NXM_NX_* names as xxreg0 and
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>
>> xxreg2 and xxreg3 had the same NXM_NX_* names as xxreg0 and xxreg1,
>> correspondingly.
>>
>> Found by inspection.
>>
>> CC: Justin Pettit
That seems like a reasonable idea to me. It's obviously not strictly
necessary, but it's nice to be able to deal with contiguous ranges.
--Justin
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> Should we also reserve some range of NXM_NX numbers after 114 for
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> xxreg2 and xxreg3 had the same NXM_NX_* names as xxreg0 and xxreg1,
> correspondingly.
>
> Found by inspection.
>
> CC: Justin Pettit
> Fixes: b23ada8eecfd ("Introduce 128-bit xxregs.")
> Signed-off-by:
Should we also reserve some range of NXM_NX numbers after 114 for potential
future registers, say 115-118 at least? Other register types do not have this
problem as they have their own classes of numbers.
Jarno
> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> xxreg2
xxreg2 and xxreg3 had the same NXM_NX_* names as xxreg0 and xxreg1,
correspondingly.
Found by inspection.
CC: Justin Pettit
Fixes: b23ada8eecfd ("Introduce 128-bit xxregs.")
Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
---
include/openvswitch/meta-flow.h | 4 ++--
1 file