On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 01:13:07AM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Liran Schour <lir...@il.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In case that we flushed everything already, we can immeidately return
> NULL.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Liran Schour <lir...@il.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > ovsdb/monitor.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/ovsdb/monitor.c b/ovsdb/monitor.c
> > > index 5ae9cdb..1a07f19 100644
> > > --- a/ovsdb/monitor.c
> > > +++ b/ovsdb/monitor.c
> > > @@ -733,6 +733,10 @@ ovsdb_monitor_get_update(struct ovsdb_monitor
> *dbmon,
> > > uint64_t prev_txn = *unflushed;
> > > uint64_t next_txn = dbmon->n_transactions + 1;
> > >
> > > + if (prev_txn == next_txn) {
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > >
> > Thanks for reporting the issue. The change as is breaks the unit tests.
> But
> > the optimziation
> > does make sense. After looking further, I was able to find a bug.
> >
> > I have posted a patch series that fixes this bug and folded the suggested
> > optimization
> > (in a slightly different manner). . Would you please review them:
> >
> > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-February/066513.html
>
> I don't think that's the right message reference. Do you mean
> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-February/066515.html
> ?
>
Yes. Thanks for the correction.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
