[ovs-dev] [cfm 1/6] cfm: Move destination address to packets.h

[Ben Pfaff]

I think I'd like it in cfm.h better, if that's OK.

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:19:40AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The main issue is that I wanted to pull L2 header composition out of
> CFM into it's caller.  This will allow us to remove the eth_src from
> the cfm configuration and prevent the ugliness which occurs when we
> push the eth_src from the bridge to ofproto through the cfm
> configuration.  We could alternatively put it in the cfm header file
> if you prefer.
> 
> Ethan
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:32:53PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> >> This seems to be more stylistically correct.
> >
> > Is there any more rationale than this? ?It's never been my goal to
> > have *every* protocol definition in packets.h, although I can see how
> > you got that idea. ?We used to have better counterexamples than we do
> > now, in the lib/dhcp.h and lib/stp.h libraries.
> >
> > I can think of a few reasons to put declarations in packets.h instead
> > of in a protocol-specific header:
> >
> > ? ? ? ?- The declarations are widely used and so there's little
> > ? ? ? ? ?benefit in making the users include additional headers.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?- There's a clean logical separation in our tree between a
> > ? ? ? ? ?protocol and implementations of it, but it doesn't seem
> > ? ? ? ? ?worthwhile (yet) to make a new header file for just this
> > ? ? ? ? ?protocol.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?- There just isn't another good place in the tree to put the
> > ? ? ? ? ?declarations.
> >
> > But I don't know which of these applies to cfm. ?It seems that, so far
> > at least, only cfm.c really needs these definitions, and so cfm.c
> > seems like an OK place, to me.
> >