wenxu <wenx05124...@163.com> writes:
> At 2022-07-04 16:43:20, "Paolo Valerio" <pvale...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>Hello wenxu,
>>
>>thanks for having a look at it.
>>
>>wenxu <wenx05124...@163.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Paolo,
>>>
>>> There are two small question.
>>> First the ct_lock lock/unlock as below maybe also can be dropped with this
>>> patch ?
>>>
>>> ovs_mutex_lock(&ct->ct_lock);
>>> if (!conn_lookup(ct, &ctx->key, now, NULL, NULL)) {
>>> conn = conn_not_found(ct, pkt, ctx, commit, now,
>>> nat_action_info,
>>> helper, alg_exp, ct_alg_ctl, tp_id);
>>> }
>>> ovs_mutex_unlock(&ct->ct_lock);
>>>
>>
>>The locked lookup/insertion should be kept, as it could lead e.g. to a
>>double insertion in the case we lookup without locking.
> Yes， What I mean is narrow the region of the lock. Only the insertion
> need this lock.
>
Just to clarify what I was referring to in my previous email [1].
[1]
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/9ae8ad243da85be4853b90eccc958600dace7726.1623786081.git.gr...@u256.net/#2728678
>>But you're right, in general, there should be room for improvement
>>because we could probably narrow the region we lock.
>>IMO, we should keep this out of this series, and maybe follow up
>>later, to avoid introducing too many changes at once.
>>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
