It's not really necessary, patch 1/2 makes sense on its own.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:06:28AM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> Shall I wait for feedback on patch #2 before posting a fresh version of
> this?
>
>
> On 1 March 2014 10:43, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > Please.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014
Shall I wait for feedback on patch #2 before posting a fresh version of
this?
On 1 March 2014 10:43, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Please.
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:43:27PM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> > I figured that if we're not using the retval currently, then it doesn't
> > matter too much. But
Please.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:43:27PM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> I figured that if we're not using the retval currently, then it doesn't
> matter too much. But I'm happy to change it.
>
>
> On 28 February 2014 13:53, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:42:13PM -0800, Joe S
I figured that if we're not using the retval currently, then it doesn't
matter too much. But I'm happy to change it.
On 28 February 2014 13:53, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:42:13PM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer
>
> I would have xpthread_barrier_wai
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:42:13PM -0800, Joe Stringer wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer
I would have xpthread_barrier_wait() pass along the return value from
pthread_barrier_wait(), because some uses of barriers want that
information.
Otherwise, looks good.
__
Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer
---
v5: First post.
---
lib/ovs-thread.c | 24
lib/ovs-thread.h |6 ++
2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/ovs-thread.c b/lib/ovs-thread.c
index 4dfccaf..e2a28a0 100644
--- a/lib/ovs-thread.c
+++ b/lib/ovs-thread.c
@@
