Good, except for that one extra blank line…
Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com>
On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> I get a bunch of thread-safety warnings with the latest Clang without this
> patch, because Clang is smart enough to see locking and unlocking but not
> smart enough to figure out the relationships. This refactoring avoids the
> warnings.
>
> I first noticed these warnings with Clang 1:3.4~svn188890-1~exp1.
> I previously used version 1:3.4~svn187484-1~exp1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c
> index 4578675..1b5e9eb 100644
> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c
> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c
> @@ -1664,6 +1664,26 @@ compose_output_action(struct xlate_ctx *ctx,
> ofp_port_t ofp_port)
> }
>
> static void
> +xlate_recursively(struct xlate_ctx *ctx, struct rule_dpif *rule)
> + OVS_RELEASES(rule->up.evict)
> +{
> + struct rule_dpif *old_rule = ctx->rule;
> +
> + if (ctx->xin->resubmit_stats) {
> + rule_credit_stats(rule, ctx->xin->resubmit_stats);
> + }
> +
Extra blank line here.
> +
> + ctx->recurse++;
> + ctx->rule = rule;
> + do_xlate_actions(rule->up.ofpacts, rule->up.ofpacts_len, ctx);
> + ctx->rule = old_rule;
> + ctx->recurse--;
> +
> + rule_release(rule);
> +}
> +
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
