v2 seems fine to me too. I'll leave it to Alex to apply this in case he has further comments.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:48:14PM -0700, Daniele Di Proietto wrote: > Thanks, > > After an offline discussion with Alex we decided that it might be worth to go > one > step further and avoid calling the notification callback in case of error. > > This (for example) would prevent lib/route-table.c from believing that the > routing > table has changed on every iteration > > I?m about to send a v2. Please, let me know what you think > > Daniele > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13:28AM -0700, Daniele Di Proietto wrote: > >> An error from nl_sock_recv() could mean that there issues with the netlink > >> socket (EBADF, ENOTSOCK, ...). Keeping calling nl_sock_recv() in this case > >> is > >> harmful: nln_run() will never return and, since we are calling it from the > >> main > >> thread, vswitchd will become unresponsive. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto <ddiproie...@vmware.com> > > > > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
