On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:48:43PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:40:45PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote: > >> > >>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 3:34 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> <dt><code>resubmit;</code></dt> > >>> - <dd>execute next logical datapath table as subroutine</dd> > >>> + <dd> > >>> + Executes the next logical datapath table as a subroutine. > >>> + </dd> > >> > >> Should we indicate that it's the next higher version table number? > >> Resubmit always makes me think it's going back to the same table. In > >> fact, I wonder if something like "next-table" would be a more accurate > >> name. > > > > You're right, "resubmit" isn't the best name here. > > > > We need a name that's a valid identifier (so far, the syntax for > > identifiers is C-like). I'm OK with "next_table" although it seems > > somewhat long. Do you think just "next" is good enough? This is an OK > > time to change it but I don't want to change it more than once. > > "next" works for me.
OK, I've made that change in my local copy of the commit. I also updated patch 9 similarly. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
