On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:25:07AM -0700, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> > @@ -81,8 +81,14 @@ struct add_remote_aux {
> > struct sset *remotes;
> > struct db *dbs;
> > size_t n_dbs;
> > + FILE *config_tmpfile;
> > };
> > static unixctl_cb_func ovsdb_server_add_remote;
> > +
> > +struct remove_remote_aux {
> > + struct sset *remotes;
> > + FILE *config_tmpfile;
> > +};
> >
> Do we need the extra data structure here. Looks like the add_remote_aux is
> good enough (may be with a different name).
I agree that add_remote_aux has everything that remove_remote_aux
does. I considered using it. In the end, I decided that it was
slightly nicer to have two different structures, since
remove_remote_aux does not need everything that add_remote_aux does.
This could change if more callbacks start needing this data. So far,
it's only two.
> > +/* Truncates and replaces the contents of 'config_file' by a
> > representatation
>
> s/representatation/representation
Thanks, I'll fix that.
So you're happy with this?
Thanks,
Ben.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
