[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] ovn: Add ct_commit(ct_mark=INT, ct_label=INT); action.

[Russell Bryant]

b

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Justin Pettit <jpettit at ovn.org> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 21, 2016, at 7:54 AM, Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org> wrote:
> >
> > Update the "ct_commit;" logical flow action to optionally take
> > one or two parameters, setting the value of "ct_mark" or "ct_label".
> > Supported ct_commit syntax now includes:
> >
> >    ct_commit;
> >    ct_commit();
> >    ct_commit(ct_mark=1);
> >    ct_commit(ct_label=1);
> >    ct_commit(ct_mark=1, ct_label=1);
> >
> > Setting ct_mark via this type of logical flow results in an OpenFlow
> > flow that looks like:
> >
> >
> actions=ct(commit,zone=NXM_NX_REG5[0..15],exec(set_field:0x1->ct_mark))
> >
> > Similarly, setting ct_label results in:
> >
> >
> actions=ct(commit,zone=NXM_NX_REG5[0..15],exec(set_field:0x1->ct_label))
>
> It doesn't look like we have any test cases, but I believe the exec()
> command supports bit-wise setting of the "ct_label" and "ct_mark" fields.
> It seems like it would be nice to be able to do bit-level twiddling.  For
> example, in the next patch it might be nice to support one or both of the
> following formats:
>
>         ct_commit(ct_label[0]=1)
>         ct_commit(ct_label=0x1/0x1)
>
> What do you think?
>

Yeah, no tests.  I honestly wasn't sure how to test it since we can't use
ct() in the test suite.  I was hoping that we could start adding some tests
for this stuff once the userspace conntrack patches go in.

Bit-level twiddling would indeed be nice.  I didn't have a need for it in
this series, though.  Are you OK with it coming as a future enhancement, or
would you like to see it now?

-- 
Russell Bryant