> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote: > > >> On Jan 13, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:32AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>> Use memory_order_release when updating the tables version number to >>> make sure no memory accesses before the atomic_store (possibly >>> relating to setting up the new version) are reordered to take place >>> after the atomic_store, which makes the new version available to other >>> threads. >>> >>> Correspondingly, use memory_order_acquire when reading the >>> current tables_version to make sure no later memory accesses (possibly >>> relating to the current version) are reordered to take place before >>> the atomic_read to ensure that those memory accesses can not relate to >>> an older version than returned by the atomic_read. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Daniele Di Proietto <ddiproie...@vmware.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> >> >> Is this a bug fix? > > Yes, but IMO this bug has very low chance of causing problems. > >> >> Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > Thanks, applied to master, branch-2.7, and branch-2.6. >
And to branch-2.5 and branch-2.4. Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
