On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 07:50:24AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 05:22:08PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:00:53PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:29:28AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > Use a list rather than an array to track monitor requests > > > > in handle_flow_monitor_request(). > > > > > > > > This is in preparation for supporting OpenFlow1.4 flow monitor requests > > > > with delete and modify commands. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> > > > > > > I took a really cursory look at later patches and didn't immediately > > > spot how the change from an array to a list helped. Can you explain? > > > > It is used by "ofproto: Handle monitor and delete commands in flow monitor > > requests" which unlinks requests if it is added or modified and then > > subsequently deleted in the same request message. > > > > The unlink occurs through the call to flow_monitor_delete() > > which in turn calls ofmonitor_destroy(). > > Thanks for explaining. > > I think I made a number of suggestions on the first several patches. I > guess that you will consider them and repost?
Yes, of course. I'll follow your guidance with regards to this and other patches and repost. > > > Instead of list_insert(), I would use list_push_back(). It has the > > > same effect but the meaning is more obvious: > > > > + list_insert(&monitor_list, &m->list_node); > > > > Thanks. I don't think the order isn't important, but I'm happy to > > use list_push_back all the same. > > Thanks. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
