[ovs-dev] [cfm 4/6] packets: Create new compose_ccm() function.
blp at nicira.com
Wed Mar 23 12:04:42 PDT 2011
That would be fine with me. I don't see a reason that you should have
to do it, though, unless you want to.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:46:13AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> 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.
> 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