Looks good,
Out of curiosity, are you planning to update the code, or is the
current implementation fine?
Ethan
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:27, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> This documented what I intended to implement and what I thought I had
> implemented, but not what the code actually did. It is a little easier to
> fix the documentation to match the implementation than vice versa, so this
> commit does so.
>
> Reported-by: Hao Zheng <hzh...@nicira.com>
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-provider.h | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-provider.h b/ofproto/ofproto-provider.h
> index 037dbae..c9d74ee 100644
> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-provider.h
> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-provider.h
> @@ -721,8 +721,8 @@ struct ofproto_class {
> * * Return an OpenFlow error code (as returned by ofp_mkerr()).
> (Do
> * not call ofoperation_complete() in this case.)
> *
> - * In the former case, ->rule_destruct() will be called; in the
> latter
> - * case, it will not. ->rule_dealloc() will be called in either
> case.
> + * Either way, ->rule_destruct() will not be called for 'rule', but
> + * ->rule_dealloc() will be.
> *
> * - If the operation is only partially complete, then it must return 0.
> * Later, when the operation is complete, the ->run() or ->destruct()
> --
> 1.7.4.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
