I skimmed it, looks fine to me. Ethan
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > I defined a separate ovs_mutex_init_recursive(). I sent out a v2 in > case you want to look: > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2013-August/030895.html > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 05:21:41PM +0800, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> Oops yes you're right. It might be worth defining a separate function for >> that, but its your call. The patch is good as is. >> >> Ethan (iPhone) >> >> On Aug 17, 2013, at 13:08, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Aug 16, 2013 9:47 PM, "Ethan Jackson" <et...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > > Personally I'd prefer we change ovs_mutex_init() to not take a mutex >> > > type as an argument and simply use the error checking mutex always. I >> > > think it's going to be a long time before we actually need to >> > > configure this on a per mutex basis, and I don't think we know what >> > > abstraction we'll need at that point today. >> > >> > Don't we need the ability to initialize a recursive mutex? It didn't occur >> > to me to drop the parameter but that's the only current reason to keep it. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
