Fwiw, I agree with what both Masa and KK.
Masa's point: OFPP_TABLE shouldn't be a special case: i.e., it should
be able to generate packet_in's on the second pss
KK's point: this should be more explicitly called out in the spec.
I think if you were to suggest a specific wording in the next
Okay, I think the high level point is we should expose malformed
packets and let others decide how to handle it. Can someone review
this patch before I push?
Regards
KK
On 14 January 2011 01:25, Rob Sherwood rob.sherw...@stanford.edu wrote:
Fwiw, I agree with what both Masa and KK.
Masa's
I haven't used git-am. What format does it expect the patch to be in?
I usually do the following:
$ cd nox
$ patch -p1 path/to/patch/pytopology_destiny.patch
-/\/
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM, kk yap yap...@stanford.edu wrote:
Hi Nikhil,
That did not work.
ykk@kk-alien:~$ git am
Please use git-format-patch.
Regards
KK
On 14 January 2011 10:52, Nikhil Handigol nikh...@cs.stanford.edu wrote:
I haven't used git-am. What format does it expect the patch to be in?
I usually do the following:
$ cd nox
$ patch -p1 path/to/patch/pytopology_destiny.patch
-/\/
On Fri,
Hi KK
The patch looks right. I will push that to SNAC too.
Thanks
Srini.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM, kk yap yap...@stanford.edu wrote:
Okay, I think the high level point is we should expose malformed
packets and let others decide how to handle it. Can someone review
this patch before I
