Ah.
Is it OK for us to keep complaining about you removing it though?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:10:06PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> I never removed it, just complained about it.
>
> Ethan
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 02:56:55PM +1000, Si
I never removed it, just complained about it.
Ethan
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 02:56:55PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:37:48PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 02:56:55PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:37:48PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > > > Simon presented numbers that showed it to be a valuable optimization
> > > > in some cases, otherwise
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:37:48PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > > Simon presented numbers that showed it to be a valuable optimization
> > > in some cases, otherwise I'd just say get rid of it.
> >
> > If that's the only reason we hav
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 03:50:01PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > What about the "cookies" hindex in struct ofproto, does it need
> > locking or removal?
>
> I don't think so. The only thing that cares about cookies is
> ofproto.c which is single threaded. We needed to lock expirable
> because
> What about the "cookies" hindex in struct ofproto, does it need
> locking or removal?
I don't think so. The only thing that cares about cookies is
ofproto.c which is single threaded. We needed to lock expirable
because ofproto-dpif-xlate messes with it indirectly by doing a
list_remove on rule
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:37:48PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > > Simon presented numbers that showed it to be a valuable optimization
> > > in some cases, otherwise I'd just say get rid of it.
> >
> > If that's the only reason we hav
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > Simon presented numbers that showed it to be a valuable optimization
> > in some cases, otherwise I'd just say get rid of it.
>
> If that's the only reason we have it, I vote we ditch it. It's a new
> world with multithreading, I'
> Simon presented numbers that showed it to be a valuable optimization
> in some cases, otherwise I'd just say get rid of it.
If that's the only reason we have it, I vote we ditch it. It's a new
world with multithreading, I'd like to have a clean slate in the
direction of thread safety and add op
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:04:25PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> > There is some gratuitous whitespace change (tabs vs. spaces?) in
> > xlate_fin_timeout().
> >
> > There's something about this change that makes me uncomfortable but I
> > can't quite put my finger on what it is.
>
> I agree, I don
> There is some gratuitous whitespace change (tabs vs. spaces?) in
> xlate_fin_timeout().
>
> There's something about this change that makes me uncomfortable but I
> can't quite put my finger on what it is.
I agree, I don't like it. Ideally we'd just get rid of the expirable
list, but I don't kno
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:58:28PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
There is some gratuitous whitespace change (tabs vs. spaces?) in
xlate_fin_timeout().
There's something about this change that makes me uncomfortable but I
can't quite put my finger on what it is.
Acke
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 18 ++
ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c |2 ++
ofproto/ofproto-provider.h |4 +++-
ofproto/ofproto.c|8
4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-
13 matches
Mail list logo
