Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] kvm tools: Add optional parameter used in ioport callbacks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 12:20 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 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.

Why do it like that? this way users of the callback functions will need
to know the internal structure of struct ioport_entry.

-- 

Sasha.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux