Oh, sorry, somehow it fell off my radar. I like it, actually.
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:07:46AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > Ben, > > Will you review this, or should I just drop this? > > Jarno > > > On Sep 18, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sep 18, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com > >> <mailto:b...@nicira.com>> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:54:21PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >>> Update the comment in ukey_revalidate() to reflect the fact that the > >>> mask in ukey is not the datapath mask, but the originally translated > >>> flow wildcards. > >>> > >>> Use flow_wildcards_has_extra() instead of open coding equivalent (but > >>> different) functionality. The old form and the code in > >>> flow_wildcards_has_extra() ((dp | wc != dp) and (dp & wc != wc), > >>> respecively) give the same result: > >>> > >>> dp wc (dp | wc != dp) (dp & wc != wc) > >>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 0 0 (0 | 0 != 0) (false) (0 & 0 != 0) (false) > >>> 0 1 (0 | 1 != 0) (true) (0 & 1 != 1) (true) > >>> 1 0 (1 | 0 != 1) (false) (1 & 0 != 0) (false) > >>> 1 1 (1 | 1 != 1) (false) (1 & 1 != 1) (false) > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com > >>> <mailto:jrajaha...@nicira.com>> > >> > >> Does this change the behavior of the code at all; that is, is it a bug > >> fix? I suspect not, but it'd be nice to know. > > > > Just a refactor, no behavior change. > > > > Jarno > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
