I'm not going to update the code unless it causes trouble for some
implementation.
Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:40:13PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> 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
