Change format to use one row per software, with multiple bits each. #4
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Calico reserves 16 bits for itself, which would be ridiculously unwieldy in the previous format. The original goal of listing individual bits was so that we could show conflicts easily, by listing several pieces of software for a bit. Instead, this change adds a new "conflicts" section that highlights which of the bit ranges from the prior section represent conflicts. Signed-off-by: David Anderson <dave@natulte.net>
danderson
force-pushed
the
danderson/format-twiddle
branch
from
76d0294
to
88e2a88
Compare
joestringer
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2020
|
|
||
| | Bit | Mark value | Software | | ||
| | Bit(s) | Mark value | Software | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: Would Mark mask be more appropriate given that multiple bits covered by this value are handled by the corresponding software?
joestringer
reviewed
Jul 28, 2020
Comment on lines
+46
to
+47
| | 17 | [Weave Net][weave] and [Calico][cal] | Not a problem in practice, Weave Net and Calico are incompatible anyway. | | ||
| | 18-19 | [Calico][cal] and [Tailscale][ts] | | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assuming there are three or more software with conflicts on particular bits, how do you want to format the table?
joestringer
reviewed
Aug 2, 2020
Comment on lines
+49
to
+67
| ### Bits not currently in use | ||
|
|
||
| If you're writing new software, here is a list of bitwise marking bits | ||
| that are not in use, according to this registry. This is not a | ||
| guarantee that the bits are unused, merely that this registry doesn't | ||
| know about their use. | ||
|
|
||
| | Bit | Mark value | | ||
| |-----|-----------| | ||
| | 0 | 0x1 | | ||
| | 1 | 0x2 | | ||
| | 2 | 0x4 | | ||
| | 3 | 0x8 | | ||
| | 4 | 0x10 | | ||
| | 5 | 0x20 | | ||
| | 6 | 0x40 | | ||
| | 7 | 0x80 | | ||
| | 12 | 0x1000 | | ||
| | 13 | 0x2000 | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, and I think my latest PR dispells any possible notion that there are bits not yet overloaded ;-)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Calico reserves 16 bits for itself, which would be ridiculously unwieldy
in the previous format. The original goal of listing individual bits was
so that we could show conflicts easily, by listing several pieces of
software for a bit.
Instead, this change adds a new "conflicts" section that highlights which
of the bit ranges from the prior section represent conflicts.
Signed-off-by: David Anderson dave@natulte.net