Does it make sense to use the thread ID instead? That way it'd be
clear if some reconfiguration happens that destroys and recreates
them.
Ethan
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> This may occasionally make debugging easier.
>
> Suggested-by: Keith Amidon <ke...@nicira.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c
> index 54f441b..1605c63 100644
> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c
> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c
> @@ -448,7 +448,8 @@ udpif_miss_handler(void *arg)
> struct list misses = LIST_INITIALIZER(&misses);
> struct handler *handler = arg;
>
> - set_subprogram_name("miss_handler");
> + set_subprogram_name("miss_handler_%td",
> + handler - handler->udpif->handlers);
> for (;;) {
> size_t i;
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
