[ovs-dev] [cfm 4/6] packets: Create new compose_ccm() function.
Ethan Jackson
ethan at nicira.com
Wed Mar 23 18:46:13 UTC 2011
Well, it would seem to me then that the lacp_compose and parse
functions, ethernet destination address, and protocol data structures
should move into the lacp header file. Does that seem reasonable to
you? If so I will go ahead and reorganize this series, resend it, and
add some patches which pull the lacp stuff out of packets.
Ethan
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
> The purpose of the packets library is not carved in stone, but I've
> been regarding it mainly as a grab bag for stuff that doesn't have a
> clear place elsewhere in the tree. "benign" packets fall into that
> category I think, but for LACP and CCM it seems less clear--we have
> LACP and CFM files. Anything that is esoteric and protocol specific
> would seem well suited to go into protocol-specific .c and .h files
> when we already have them. Not sure why we'd banish it to some
> generic place.
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:29:54AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> I guess I'm not fully understanding the purpose of the packets
>> library. The definition of ccm messages is in its header file. It
>> would seem natural to me for composition and parsing to be there as
>> well. Furthermore, this is how it's done for lacp and "benign"
>> packets. It seems like a good place to put esoteric protocol specific
>> logic that is only interesting in creating the packets freeing up the
>> caller to deal with the logic of what actually belongs in there.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:32:56PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>> >> This cleans up the CFM library a bit by pushing ccm composition
>> >> details into the packets library.
>> >
>> > I don't yet see the benefit to moving composing (patch 4) and parsing
>> > (patch 5) CCM packets from cfm into packets. ?Can you explain?
>> >
>
More information about the dev
mailing list