On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:01:27PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > My main high level concern about this patch is that we've ditched the > thread safety annotations from struct rule_dpif. I think they're > still useful even if the rule isn't literally locked. Semantically we > say struct rule_dpif is lockable, rule_dpif_ref() takes a shared lock > on it, and rule_dpif_unref() releases the shared lock. This will help > us prevent memory leaks when people forget to unref their rules. > Thoughts?
I wrote some thoughts on this on the previous patch. > In xlate_recursively() I think it'd be cleaner if the caller did the > rule_dpif_unref() instead of xlate_recursively(). This probably > should have been done before. Changed. > rule_dpif_unref() is marked as NO_THREAD_SAFETY_ANALYSIS, but I don't > think it has to be anymore. You're right, thanks, removed. Thanks for the review. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
