On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:20 AM, <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>>>> From: Pravin <pshe...@nicira.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> ovs_flow_free() is not called under ovs-lock during packet >>>>>> execute path. Since packet execute does not touch flow->mask, >>>>>> there is no need to take that lock either. So move assert in >>>>>> case where flow->mask is checked. >>>>>> >>>>>> Found by code inspection. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> >>>>> >>>>> The idea for putting it here is that callers should always hold OVS >>>>> mutex and by putting the check earlier it increases the chances that >>>>> problems will be caught sooner. >>>> >>>> But it is not protecting any data outside of that flow->mask case, so >>>> it is not required. >>> >>> I agree that it's not required but I don't understand the benefit to >>> removing it. Are there cases where we want to call this function where >>> OVS mutex isn't held because there is no flow mask? >> >> I kept it because it was very recently added. I am ok with removing >> it. I will send patch. > > I think we are saying the opposite - I don't understand why we want to > remove it/make it trigger less often.
yes, from ovs_packet_cmd_execute(). _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
