On 15 July 2014 15:26, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > I notice that dpif_netdev_flow_dump_next() also does this optimization > for > > actions, but there's no mention of RCU in the dpif_flow_dump_next() API. > Do > > you think we should add a comment like this to dpif_flow_get() and > > dpif_flow_dump_next()? > > > > "Implementations may opt to point flow->mask and/or flow->actions at > > RCU-protected data rather than making a copy of them. Therefore, callers > > that wish to hold these over quiesce periods must make a copy of these > > fields before quiescing." > > I agree. I've meant to do this for a while, it's only laziness > preventing me. > > If you add this comment then you can remove the comment > /* XXX the caller must use 'actions' without quiescing */ > on dpif_netdev_flow_dump_next(). >
OK. I'll send a separate patch to add these comments. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
