On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 03:26:52PM +0000, Rajahalme, Jarno (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > > 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.
You make a good point that at least the function signature is honest about it. I applied this. I adjusted it slightly (moved a comment, changed a "goto" to a "break"). Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
