On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 01:13:07AM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Liran Schour <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In case that we flushed everything already, we can immeidately return NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Liran Schour <[email protected]> > > --- > > ovsdb/monitor.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/ovsdb/monitor.c b/ovsdb/monitor.c > > index 5ae9cdb..1a07f19 100644 > > --- a/ovsdb/monitor.c > > +++ b/ovsdb/monitor.c > > @@ -733,6 +733,10 @@ ovsdb_monitor_get_update(struct ovsdb_monitor *dbmon, > > uint64_t prev_txn = *unflushed; > > uint64_t next_txn = dbmon->n_transactions + 1; > > > > + if (prev_txn == next_txn) { > > + return NULL; > > + } > > + > > > Thanks for reporting the issue. The change as is breaks the unit tests. But > the optimziation > does make sense. After looking further, I was able to find a bug. > > I have posted a patch series that fixes this bug and folded the suggested > optimization > (in a slightly different manner). . Would you please review them: > > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-February/066513.html
I don't think that's the right message reference. Do you mean http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-February/066515.html ? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
