Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-11 Thread Jarno Rajahalme
> 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:

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-11 Thread Ben Pfaff
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

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-10 Thread Jarno Rajahalme
> 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

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-07 Thread 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

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-07 Thread Justin Pettit
> 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:

Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-07 Thread Jarno Rajahalme
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

[ovs-dev] [PATCH] meta-flow: Fix the NXM_NX_* names of xxreg2 and xxreg3.

2016-10-07 Thread Jarno Rajahalme
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