> I'd be more comfortable with a plain abort(), if that's OK.
>
Ah yes, that's actually what I meant. Just mistyped.
Thanks,
Ethan
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:55:09PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Out of curiosity, did you consider the name xassert() as an alternative to
> ovs_assert()? It has the advantage of following our established convention.
I was taking the "x" prefix to indicate a function wrapper that aborts
on error
Out of curiosity, did you consider the name xassert() as an alternative to
ovs_assert()? It has the advantage of following our established convention.
+static int reentry;
>
I'm not sure if the C spec strictly requires it, but I would feel more
comfortable if we initialized this to 0 explici
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 10:48:16AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> An occasionally significant problem with the standard "assert" macro is
> that it writes the failure message to stderr. In our daemons, stderr is
> generally redirected to /dev/null. It's more useful to write the failure
> message to th
An occasionally significant problem with the standard "assert" macro is
that it writes the failure message to stderr. In our daemons, stderr is
generally redirected to /dev/null. It's more useful to write the failure
message to the log, which is what the new ovs_assert macro introduced in
this pa
