[ovs-dev] [PATCH ovn v2 1/2] lflow.c: Avoid adding redundant resource refs for port-bindings.

Dumitru Ceara dceara at redhat.com
Thu Sep 17 07:49:01 UTC 2020

On 9/16/20 10:05 PM, Han Zhou wrote:
>> > Same as above. In addition, I prefer fewer functions because it is
>> > easier (slightly) to tell from the prototypes that those are the only
>> > operations possible for this data structure. In this case, it tells that
>> > this is the only interface that allocates memory for the resource
>> > reference table. Of course with extra functions you can still tell that
>> > by checking the code and realize that there is only one place the
>> > _create() functions are called, but to me that is just more noise
>> > (slightly). I don't think every data structure needs all the
>> > constructors and destructors in C. The code should evolve naturally when
>> > such functions are necessary. But if there is a coding style kind of
>> > agreement that makes it a convention then I would just follow. Again, I
>> > don't have a strong opinion in this case.
>> >
>> I tend to agree in general but my concern in this specific case is that
>> it's very easy to make a typo and write "free(lfrn);" instead of
>> "free(lrln);".
> True. But that's more of a variable naming problem. Some may argue that
> it is easy to call the wrong function if the function names are similar :)

Well, even if the function names are similar, they would be operating on
different data types so the compiler would complain if we'd try to call
the wrong function.

While free(void *) compiles with any pointer arg :)

In any case, I'll give this more thought coming weeks and I'll try to
see if I can come up with a concrete patch we can discuss on.


More information about the dev mailing list