I really just want an update to the commit message.
On Dec 12, 2013 4:51 PM, "Ethan Jackson" wrote:
> > It seems harmless but the reason for it isn't really obvious. Maybe
> > this is to support some later change in the series? If so then it would
> > be nice to hint at that in the commit messa
> It seems harmless but the reason for it isn't really obvious. Maybe
> this is to support some later change in the series? If so then it would
> be nice to hint at that in the commit message.
The main reason is that the API became a bit unwieldy once there were
two types of thread to deal with.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:45:11PM -0800, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> There's no particular reason for the function controlling the number
> of threads to be bound up with dpif_recv_set(). This patch breaks
> them up, but as a side effect means threads will run doing nothing
> when datapath upcall rece
There's no particular reason for the function controlling the number
of threads to be bound up with dpif_recv_set(). This patch breaks
them up, but as a side effect means threads will run doing nothing
when datapath upcall receiving is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson
---
ofproto/ofproto-
