On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:33:43AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 10:51:27AM -0800, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
>> >> static inline size_t ofpbuf_l4_size(const struct ofpbuf *b)
>> >> {
>> >> - return b->l4_ofs != UINT16_MAX
>> >> - ? (const char *)ofpbuf_tail(b) - (const char *)ofpbuf_l4(b)
>> >> - - ofpbuf_l2_pad_size(b)
>> >> - : 0;
>> >> + return b->l4_ofs != UINT16_MAX ? ofpbuf_size(b) - b->l4_ofs : 0;
>> >> }
>> >
>> > I think that this change makes the new assumption that b->frame ==
>> > b->data. I have a hard time deciding whether that's important.
>>
>> A lot of our packet handling code already makes that assumption. Maybe we
>> should document this?
>
> It's sort of documented in ofpbuf.h, but it's too wishy-washy for me to
> comfortably assume it's always true:
>
> * Additionally, we assume in many places that the 'frame' and 'data' are
> * the same for packets.
OK, I will drop this patch.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
