Thanks, I went with that.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 01:09:47PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > I like NAME_get_unsafe() personally. > > Thanks, > > Ethan > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:56:09PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> I don't really like the names of the functions "NAME_get" and > >> "NAME_get__" could we come up with something that's a bit more > >> specific about the difference between them? Maybe get_init and get? > >> I'm not sure what would be best . . . > > > > The idea is supposed to be that you call NAME_get() by default, since > > it's always safe, and NAME_get__() if you know what you're doing and > > know that that is safe. How about, then, NAME_get() and > > NAME_get_preinited() or NAME_get_unsafe() or ...? > > > >> Acked-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
