Solution seems clean, I'm happy with this as well.
Acked-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> wrote:
> Looks good to me,
>
> /* A MAC learning table entry.
>> - * Guarded by owning 'mac_learning''s rwlock */
>> + * Guarded by owning 'mac_learning''s rwlock. */
>> struct mac_entry {
>> struct hmap_node hmap_node; /* Node in a mac_learning hmap. */
>> time_t expires; /* Expiration time. */
>> @@ -47,14 +108,30 @@ struct mac_entry {
>> uint16_t vlan; /* VLAN tag. */
>>
>> /* The following are marked guarded to prevent users from iterating
>> over or
>> - * accessing a mac_entry without hodling the parent mac_learning
>> rwlock. */
>> + * accessing a mac_entry without holding the parent mac_learning
>> rwlock. */
>> struct ovs_list lru_node OVS_GUARDED; /* Element in 'lrus' list. */
>>
>> - /* Learned port. */
>> - union {
>> - void *p;
>> - ofp_port_t ofp_port;
>> - } port OVS_GUARDED;
>> + /* Learned port.
>> + *
>> + * The client-specified data is mlport->port. */
>> + struct mac_learning_port *mlport;
>>
>
>
> Simple C question, why don't we need to forward declare the struct
> 'mac_learning_port'?
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
