On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I've wanted to keep the original interface clean, Most of the IO port
>> > users don't (and probably won't) require a parameter.
>>
>> Well now struct ioport_operations isn't very clean is it - or the code
>> that needs to determine which function pointer to call?-)
>
> struct ioport_operations is a bit more messy, but it's one spot instead
> of adding a 'parameter' to each module that doesn't really need it.
>
> My assumption is that most ioport users now and in the future won't need
> it, it just solves several special cases more easily (multiple devices
> which share same handling functions).
Hey, that's not an excuse to make struct ioport_operations 'bit
messy'! Look at any kernel code that uses ops like we do here and you
will see we don't do APIs like this.
One option here is to rename 'struct ioport_entry' to 'struct ioport'
and pass a pointer to that as the first argument to all of the ops.
That's what most APIs in the kernel do anyway.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
