[ovs-dev] [PATCH v5 06/13] lib/odp-util: Skip ignored fields when parsing and formatting.

[Jarno Rajahalme]

Thank you for the review!

I did the proposed/agreed upon clarifications and pushed this to master.

  Jarno

On Sep 9, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:11:25PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 8, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp at nicira.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:05:13PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>>> When a whole field of a key value is ignored, skip it when formatting
>>>> the key, and allow it to be left out when parsing the key from a
>>>> string.  However, when the unmasked bits have non-zero values (as in
>>>> keys received from a datapath), or when the 'verbose' formatting is
>>>> requested those are still formatted, as it may help in debugging.
>>>> 
>>>> Now the named key fields can also be given in arbitrary order.
>>>> Duplicate field values are not checked for, so the last one will
>>>> remain in effect.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajahalme at nicira.com>
>>> 
>>> This makes the formatting and parsing code less disastery.  Thank you.
>>> 
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>>> There's still some nastiness around the difference between an
>>> all-one-bits mask and a null mask.  It takes some real care to read
>>> the code to see that it is correct, and I'm sure that it took at least
>>> as much care to write it.  Can we do something about that?  One way
>>> would be to always supply a mask, one that is all-one-bits if there
>>> would otherwise be no mask.  That could be done externally to the
>>> format_*() functions, or it could be internally.
>> 
>> How about this variation (I realized that ?verbose? covers the case
>> when the key includes non-masked bits):
> 
> OK.
> 
>>> In *_bf(), what does "bf" stand for?
>>> 
>> ?bitfield?, did not want to make the name longer?
> 
> OK.