On Jul 7, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 07:21:18AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >> After a quick analysis, in most cases the access to refcounted objects >> is clearly protected either with an explicit lock/mutex, or RCU. there >> are only a few places where I left a call to ovs_refcount_unref(). >> Upon closer analysis it may well be that those could also use the >> relaxed form. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> > > I didn't look at these closely. Should I?
Actually, it would be kind of nice if we could eliminate the “normal” form of ovs_refcount_unref() and rename the ovs_refcount_unref_relaxed() as ovs_refcount_unref(), and also document that the access to the object being refcounted needs to be protected by a lock or a mutex, or it’s destruction needs to be RCU-postponed. Having too variants with different rules may be a bit complicated. To this end, it would be good if another pair of eyes checked/confirmed that a) the _relaxed() users actually conform to the above, and b) if/how the remaining users of ovs_refcount_unref() could be changed to conform to the new semantics. Nonetheless, I just pushed this together with the rest of the new series you just reviewed. Jarno > > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
