On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 01:00:53PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:13:21AM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote: > > > It turns out there is no need for ovsdb_jsonrcp_session to have access > > > > s/jsonrcp/jsonrpc/ > > > > > to the remote data structure. Make it opaque as a 'void *' pointer. > > > The pointer value is still useful when selecting ovsdb_jsonrpc_sessions > > > that of the same 'remote'. This change will laster multi-threading > > > > s/laster/later/ > > > > > patches easier because access to 'remote' does not need be protected. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Zhou <az...@ovn.org> > > > > I am not sure I understand the benefit yet. The definition of a struct > > does not have to be visible for a piece of code to refer to it through a > > pointer. Also, using a void pointer loses a lot of type safety. > > > > Can you explain further? > > > > Yes, I agree this is a trade off. Wonder if there is better way. > > Currently 'remote' object are only handled within the main thread, so no > locking > is required to access those objects. The intention of changing to 'void' > is to avoid > 'sessions thread' code accidentally dereference 'remote' object, thus cause > race > conditions. I was thinking the trade off is worthwhile... Please let me > know if you > don't agree.
I think that there is probably a better way than a void pointer. Usually, code can be arranged so that code that should not have a visible definition does not; for example, by putting the definition after the code that should not see the definition. Is that difficult here? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
