On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Pravin Shelar <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:33:43AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> 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. > > I guess that's OK. I was hoping that you'd look through for exceptions > and strengthen the comment, but it's also OK with me to just drop it. > Either implementations works fine for present use cases. But current ofpbuf_l4_size() does handle more cases. So I decided to drop this patch.
> -- > "I don't normally do acked-by's. I think it's my way of avoiding > getting blamed when it all blows up." Andrew Morton _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
