It could have caused unnecessarily flow revalidation. I don't think it could have caused real misbehavior.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 03:42:18PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Looks good. > > I'm curious, this couldn't have actually caused a bug could it? > may_enable would always be initialized in the run function before used > right? Either way, this makes the code more straight forward. Thanks. > > Ethan > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 15:39, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Silences a valgrind warning: > > > > ==640== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) > > ==640== ? ?at 0x808E623: run (ofproto-dpif.c:1444) > > ==640== ? ?by 0x8086593: ofproto_run (ofproto.c:755) > > ==640== ? ?by 0x806EB80: bridge_run (bridge.c:1397) > > ==640== ? ?by 0x806F66C: main (ovs-vswitchd.c:90) > > --- > > ?ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | ? ?1 + > > ?1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > > index e39f615..c88569c 100644 > > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > > @@ -714,6 +714,7 @@ port_construct(struct ofport *port_) > > ? ? port->bundle = NULL; > > ? ? port->cfm = NULL; > > ? ? port->tag = tag_create_random(); > > + ? ?port->may_enable = true; > > > > ? ? if (ofproto->sflow) { > > ? ? ? ? dpif_sflow_add_port(ofproto->sflow, port->odp_port, > > -- > > 1.7.4.4 > > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
