This is an implementation of the 16,8,8 ip lookup
(longest prefix matching) algorithm. The key of the
table is 32-bit IPv4 address.
Signed-off-by: Ru Jia
---
helper/Makefile.am | 4 +-
helper/iplookuptable.c | 974
helper/odph_iplookup
This part now fails to apply. Seems to need a rebase with the recent
flurry of merges:
bill@Ubuntu15:~/linaro/review$ git am --reject ~/Mail/Incoming/Ru/2
Applying: helper: test: add validation test of ip lookup table
Checking patch helper/test/Makefile.am...
error: while searching for:
Ping.
> 在 2016年5月23日，下午12:26，Ru Jia 写道：
>
> This is an implementation of the 16,8,8 ip lookup
> (longest prefix matching) algorithm. The key of the
> table is 32-bit IPv4 address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ru Jia
> ---
> helper/Makefile.am | 4 +-
> helper/iplookuptable.c | 974 ++
Just status to be clear here. Bill wanted to review/test this patch but
fail to apply it.
Please update to current master and send v4.
Maxim.
On 06/02/16 06:25, HePeng wrote:
Ping.
在 2016年5月23日，下午12:26，Ru Jia 写道：
This is an implementation of the 16,8,8 ip lookup
(longest prefix matching) a
sorry to reply this late.
Ru Jia recently has been very busy and I happened to miss this email and still
am wondering
why nobody review this.
Now, we submit the v4.
> 在 2016年6月3日，上午2:30，Maxim Uvarov 写道：
>
> Just status to be clear here. Bill wanted to review/test this patch but fail
> to
Hi HePeng
If you would like to try to stir up interest you could raise it at the
weekly call as well as try to get viewers interested on the list.
There is a call this week [1] but the call will be cancelled next week due
to the OPNFV summit.
Just let Bill, Maxim or I know and we can add it to t
Yes, we would like to have a discussion on these two patches.
But I cannot add it myself, I do not have the account.
> 在 2016年6月13日，下午8:19，Mike Holmes 写道：
>
> Hi HePeng
>
> If you would like to try to stir up interest you could raise it at the weekly
> call as well as try to get viewers inte
I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow's public call.
Thanks.
Bill
On Monday, June 13, 2016, HePeng wrote:
> Yes, we would like to have a discussion on these two patches.
> But I cannot add it myself, I do not have the account.
> > 在 2016年6月13日，下午8:19，Mike Holmes >
> 写道：
> >
> > Hi HePeng
Yes, I'm seeing this on API-NEXT as well as master.
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016, HePeng wrote:
> Hi, do you guys use patch this using API-NEXT branch?
>
>
> > 在 2016年6月30日，上午1:23，Bill Fischofer > 写道：
> >
> > I see the same behavior. git am reports the first patch is corrupt at
> line
> > 14, b
