Thanks Alex, I applied patches 2 through 5.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:01:33AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > Thanks Ben, > > It all makes sense now. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 05:34:26PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:49:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > The 2/17. 3/17 look good to me. > > > > > > > > > For this patch, want to ask few questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1. why does the previous implementation cannot guarantee thread > > safety > > > > (An > > > > > example?)? Is this related to the sigchld_ related functions? > > > > > > > > A single-threaded process can ensure that a signal handler doesn't > > > > run during a section of code by blocking and unblocking the signal > > > > around that section of code. A multithreaded process can't do that, > > > > because the signal handler might get invoked from any thread. > > > > > > Seem to me that we make a rule here. We only want single threaded process > > > to call "process_init() and process_start()", right? > > > > Yes, the later patch "Add thread safety comments" adds such comments. > > > > > > Also, I want to ask why do you remove the sigchld_ related functions? Is > > > that because the "xpthread_sigmask()" is not thread safe? > > > > I removed them because, after the patch, they were no longer used. > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
