Ben,
I decided to drop this patch as I wrote a bug fix relating to this. So this
patch is superseded by the later patch.
I did not investigate the potential code generation differences, but decided
that we need not worry about other threads, when the documentation says that
the function may on
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:05:57PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:25:08PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> >> Should not use ovsrcu_set_hidden() when the pointer may have been
> >> visible to other threads alread
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:25:08PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Should not use ovsrcu_set_hidden() when the pointer may have been
>> visible to other threads already.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
>
> I think that rculist_poison__(
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 03:25:08PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Should not use ovsrcu_set_hidden() when the pointer may have been
> visible to other threads already.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
I think that rculist_poison__() is only appropriate when an rculist
should not be visible to
Should not use ovsrcu_set_hidden() when the pointer may have been
visible to other threads already.
Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
---
lib/rculist.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/rculist.c b/lib/rculist.c
index 61a03d0..db2ebf8 100644
--- a/lib/rculis
