Should we also consider lock annotate the ofproto->connmgr variable?
Also, it seems to me the lock can be per ofproto, instead of a global
lock, but I am not sure this use case will benefit from a finer grain
lock.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> wrote:
> connmgr_wants_packet_in_on_miss() is called by multiple threads
> and thusly should be protected by the mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com>
> ---
> ofproto/connmgr.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ofproto/connmgr.c b/ofproto/connmgr.c
> index c6432bf..89af6b6 100644
> --- a/ofproto/connmgr.c
> +++ b/ofproto/connmgr.c
> @@ -1506,19 +1506,23 @@ ofconn_wants_packet_in_on_miss(struct ofconn *ofconn,
> * This logic assumes that "table-miss" packet_in messages
> * are always sent to controller_id 0. */
> bool
> -connmgr_wants_packet_in_on_miss(struct connmgr *mgr)
> +connmgr_wants_packet_in_on_miss(struct connmgr *mgr)
> OVS_EXCLUDED(ofproto_mutex)
> {
> struct ofconn *ofconn;
>
> + ovs_mutex_lock(&ofproto_mutex);
> LIST_FOR_EACH (ofconn, node, &mgr->all_conns) {
> enum ofputil_protocol protocol = ofconn_get_protocol(ofconn);
>
> if (ofconn->controller_id == 0 &&
> (protocol == OFPUTIL_P_NONE ||
> ofputil_protocol_to_ofp_version(protocol) < OFP13_VERSION)) {
> + ovs_mutex_unlock(&ofproto_mutex);
> return true;
> }
> }
> + ovs_mutex_unlock(&ofproto_mutex);
> +
> return false;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
