On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes. Please apply.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben.
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
