> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:07:45 +0000, Jan Scheurich wrote: > > Then perhaps I misunderstood your comment. I thought you didn't like that > > the > > SET_MASKED action wrapped OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH which in itself was nested. > > I was aiming to avoid this by lifting the two components of the NSH header > > components to the top level: > > OVS_NSH_ATTR_BASE_HEADER --> OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH_BASE_HEADER > > OVS_NSH_ATTR_MD1_CONTEXT --> OVS_KEY_ATTR_NSH_MD1_CONTEXT > > No, this should be a nested attr. > > I objected to the way value+mask combo is handled.
OK, sorry for the confusion. So what is the correct layout for MASKED_SET action with nested fields? 1. All nested values, followed by all nested masks, or 2. For each nested field value followed by mask? I guess alternative 1, but just to be sure. Jan
