> I actually like data structures that are locked externally, when it is > possible, because it gives additional flexibility. You can, for > example, implement multi-object transactions without additional cost, > or you can leave out the locking entirely if it isn't needed. In the > past, I've ordinarily seen this done by putting the lock itself > outside the data structure, since for a data structure with multiple > purposes you might want to lock it differently, or not at all. For > example, lswitch is only used from the single threaded ovs-controller > program, so it doesn't really need any lock at all. OTOH, it will be > harder to take advantage of the clang annotations if only some users > lock, and there's no real penalty to ovs-controller.
All this sounds reasonable. We're going to have a couple months of experimentation around this stuff until we settle on a style that works for us. At any rate thanks for the reviews, I'll merge this series. Ethan X-CudaMail-Whitelist-To: dev@openvswitch.org _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
