Thanks for the insight.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> To expand on that, usually one defines a non-static variable, in a .c
> file, only when an "extern" declaration of the same variable is
> already visible from #including an .h file. A definition without a
> previous de
To expand on that, usually one defines a non-static variable, in a .c
file, only when an "extern" declaration of the same variable is
already visible from #including an .h file. A definition without a
previous declaration usually means that the .h file was forgotten.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:48
I found the answer from this thread:
http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2011-May/008608.html
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
> May I ask, what rule is this?
>
> Should we always declare global variable before defining it? or just when
> it is enclosed by macros?
>
> Also, w
May I ask, what rule is this?
Should we always declare global variable before defining it? or just when
it is enclosed by macros?
Also, when the "!USE_LINKER_SECTIONS", we should modify the coverage.c the
same way. I'll send out a patch,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:08:37AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> This looks good to me,
>
> The only issue may be that some comments need to be changed:
>
> -/* Sorts coverage counters in descending order by count, within equal
> counts
> - * alphabetically by name. */
> +/* Sorts coverage counters i
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:32:06PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Just noticed, when compiling with sparse, it issues the warnings like:
>
> """
> lib/netdev-linux.c:76:1: warning: symbol 'counter_netdev_set_policing' was
> not declared. Should it be static?
> lib/netdev-linux.c:77:1: warning: symbol '
Hey Ben,
Just noticed, when compiling with sparse, it issues the warnings like:
"""
lib/netdev-linux.c:76:1: warning: symbol 'counter_netdev_set_policing' was
not declared. Should it be static?
lib/netdev-linux.c:77:1: warning: symbol 'counter_netdev_arp_lookup' was
not declared. Should it be sta
This looks good to me,
The only issue may be that some comments need to be changed:
-/* Sorts coverage counters in descending order by count, within equal
counts
- * alphabetically by name. */
+/* Sorts coverage counters in descending order by total count,
+ * within equal total counts alphabetic
This makes each of the coverage counters per-thread. It abandons the
idea of trying to keep track of the number of hits in the "current" poll
loop, since there are many poll loops running, each in its own thread, as
well as the idea of numbering epochs for the same reason. Instead, we
just keep t
