On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:07:03PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com>
In stp_unref(), the list_remove() needs to be guarded by the mutex. Some of the annotations are only on the function prototypes and not the definitions. Although the compiler is OK with this, it would be better for the reader to annotate both places. Some of the functions take the mutex gratuitously, e.g. because they access immutable state. One example is stp_get_name(). I guess that these are not a big deal because this is not going to be performance critical, but at some point we'll hit some performance-critical case where we don't really want to have to take the lock. For cases like that, what's the best way to suppress a warning? Why does stp need a recursive mutex? I don't see any natural recursion here. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
