Oops yes you're right. It might be worth defining a separate function for that,
but its your call. The patch is good as is.
Ethan (iPhone)
On Aug 17, 2013, at 13:08, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2013 9:47 PM, "Ethan Jackson" wrote:
> > Personally I'd prefer we change ovs_mutex_init() to
Avoid relying on a non-portable implementation detail for atomic_flag
tests. Per the standard, the only way to obtain the value of the flag
is via the return value from atomic_flag_test_and_set.
Signed-off-by: Ed Maste
---
tests/test-atomic.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletio
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 04:40:11PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
> Avoid relying on a non-portable implementation detail for atomic_flag
> tests. Per the standard, the only way to obtain the value of the flag
> is via the return value from atomic_flag_test_and_set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ed Maste
Thanks,
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 07:45:38PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:38:57AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to announce my intention to work on OF1.1+ Groups support for
> > Open vSwtich with a particular focus on supporting the fast failover group
> > t
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 Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 03:36:25PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> You may want to combine the two patches into one.
>
> It is not good to have is_zero mask check scattered over. This will hard to
> maintain.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM, wrote:
>
> > From: gyang
> >
> > With megaflow supp
