From: Linda Sun <l...@vmware.com<mailto:l...@vmware.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 3:27 AM To: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com<mailto:b...@nicira.com>> Cc: "dev@openvswitch.org<mailto:dev@openvswitch.org>" <dev@openvswitch.org<mailto:dev@openvswitch.org>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] poll-loop: windows poll_block implementation
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com<mailto:b...@nicira.com>> To: "Linda Sun" <l...@vmware.com<mailto:l...@vmware.com>> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org<mailto:dev@openvswitch.org> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:33:13 AM Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] poll-loop: windows poll_block implementation I don't think that it's safe to do the operations that latch_poll() and latch_set() do without synchronization. I suggest putting a lock around those two whole functions. (Probably, one global lock is plenty.) Thanks for the review. We're still working on the clean pthread porting. For now, I don't have mutex available. Can I do that later? Hi Linda, We could just use the winpthread library, which most of our code currently uses anyways, till we replace it with something else, right? Also, having the lock primitives there is probably better than leaving it for later, imo. Saurabh Linda _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org<mailto:dev@openvswitch.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=pEkjsHfytvHEWufeZPpgqSOJMdMjuZPbesVsNhCUc0E%3D%0A&m=P4eJGdIdob%2BsxIJdUQANNQrGs38eqLpMqZZkXwdPrXs%3D%0A&s=6e807831bf2aa2f90d69141dc22b7f935c1d685c25d355b522979530aeb080fa
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
