On Jun 20, 2013, at 23:36 , ext Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:26:17PM +0300, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jarno.rajaha...@nsn.com> > > I have mixed feelings here. On one hand, it is nice to avoid a big > copy in some cases (rare cases really). But on the other hand I am > not fond of interfaces that temporarily modify data, even if they > change it back later, and the pitfalls of such an approach are more of > a problem as threading comes into the picture (and we are currently in > the midst of threading OVS). > > What do you think?
I'm in favor of avoiding unnecessary copying of big data items. I guess my uneasiness limit would be crossed by taking in a const pointer and then casting and modifying the data anyway. So as long as the API is honest, and there is no need for a function to be re-entrant on the same data, I'm OK with functions modifying the data they are given. The callers use this function with private data in stack, so I think there is very low risk of this being a threading problem. It's you call I guess :-) Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
