> On Aug 30, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > --- > ofproto/ofproto.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto.c b/ofproto/ofproto.c > index d65a3fea1559..54f56d9f100e 100644 > --- a/ofproto/ofproto.c > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto.c > @@ -6344,49 +6344,60 @@ flow_monitor_delete(struct ofconn *ofconn, uint32_t > id) > } > > static enum ofperr > -handle_flow_monitor_request(struct ofconn *ofconn, const struct ofp_header > *oh) > +handle_flow_monitor_request(struct ofconn *ofconn, const struct ovs_list > *msgs) > OVS_EXCLUDED(ofproto_mutex) > { > ... > + if (request.table_id != 0xff
Do you think it would be worth using OFPTT_ALL? > @@ -8398,7 +8400,7 @@ handle_single_part_openflow(struct ofconn *ofconn, > const struct ofp_header *oh, > return handle_port_desc_stats_request(ofconn, oh); > > case OFPTYPE_FLOW_MONITOR_STATS_REQUEST: > - return handle_flow_monitor_request(ofconn, oh); > + OVS_NOT_REACHED(); Grouping this with the OFPTYPE_TABLE_FEATURES_STATS_REQUEST case and adding a comment that they are handled by the multi-part requests might make it clearer why this should not be reached. Acked-by: Justin Pettit <[email protected]> --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
