Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme jrajaha...@nicira.com
I would have expected clang to flag different annotations as a warning… Did you
look if we have similar situations with other functions? Would it be possible
to automate such a check somehow?
I’ll review the rest of the series as well,
Jarno
Forgot about this small nit:
On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com wrote:
@@ -1419,13 +1421,6 @@ ofproto_configure_table(struct ofproto *ofproto, int
table_id,
return;
}
-if (s-groups) {
-oftable_enable_eviction(table, s-groups, s-n_groups);
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:50:22PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 05:40:32AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme jrajaha...@nicira.com
Thanks! I will apply this to master and backport as necessary soon.
I backported to branch-2.4 and branch-2.3. The
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 05:40:32AM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
Acked-by: Jarno Rajahalme jrajaha...@nicira.com
Thanks! I will apply this to master and backport as necessary soon.
I would have expected clang to flag different annotations as a
warning… Did you look if we have similar
Jarno, this patch is probably a good one for you to look at. It's a
possible important bug fix and I know that you're knowledgeable about
the mutex in question.
(If you wanted to look at the rest of the series that would be nice too
but this patch in particular may be important.)
On Wed, Jun
ofproto_enable_eviction() and ofproto_disable_eviction() require
ofproto_mutex (and they were even annotated that way, though not on their
prototypes but only at definition), but it wasn't being held. This fixes
the problem.
Found by inspection.
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff b...@nicira.com
---
