From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Pfaff <blp@nicira.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.40 3/7] ofp-actions: Add OFPUTIL_OFPAT13_PUSH_MPLS
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:00:51 -0700
Message-ID: <20130930020051.GA5368@nicira.com>
References: <1380241116-7661-1-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au>
 <1380241116-7661-4-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au>
 <20130927193010.GB17506@nicira.com>
 <20130930011344.GB4768@verge.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@nicira.com>,
	Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@nicira.com>,
	Ravi K <rkerur@gmail.com>,
	Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>,
	Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz>
To: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from na3sys009aog135.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.84]:58757 "HELO
	na3sys009aog135.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753819Ab3I3CA6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 29 Sep 2013 22:00:58 -0400
Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w10so4985792pde.37
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130930011344.GB4768@verge.net.au>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:13:44AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:30:10PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 09:18:32AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > From: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz>
> > > 
> > > This patch adds a new compatibility enum for use with MPLS, so that the
> > > differing behaviour between OpenFlow 1.2 and 1.3 can be implemented in
> > > ofproto-dpif-xlate.
> > 
> > It seems a little awkward to me to do this via a new OFPACT_, mostly
> > because there isn't currently any distinction between OF1.1 and OF1.3 in
> > terms of OFPACT_ definitions.  Did you consider adding a new field to
> > struct ofpact_push_mpls that would say whether the label should be added
> > before or after a VLAN tag?
> 
> I think that the main reason that Joe and I (probably much more I than Joe)
> chose to use OFPACT_ the way that we did is that it seemed to be in keeping
> with the way the code already works. Clearly you don't feel that is the
> case which seems entirely reasonable to me. I'll see about re-working the
> code as you have suggested.

Thanks.  I think that it will make the code easier to understand.