Thanks. Applied to master.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:09:42PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > 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
