On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:48:30AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Flavio Leitner <f...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:04:06AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >> > >>> On Jun 23, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Flavio Leitner <f...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > ... > > > >>> + > >>> + ovs_assert(!single_threaded()); > >>> + perthread = ovsrcu_perthread_get(); > >> > >> Is there a particular reason not to do also these only when the locking > >> succeeds? E.g., > > > > The reason was to not hold the lock more than needed even > > though the above lines should be fast enough today. Are you > > saying that the code looks significantly better if we try > > locking first at the beginning? > > I guess in addition to aesthetics my thinking was not to do > unnecessary things if the locking does not succeed, but your design > argument is better, especially when we expect the locking to succeed > most of the time.
I sent the v4 with the return code fixed: http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-July/074505.html Thanks for your review! fbl _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
