On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 07:25:22PM +0200, Matan Barak wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > <jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:53:51PM +0200, Matan Barak wrote: > >> In order to initialize and destroy types in a generic way, we need to > >> provide information about the allocation size, release function and > >> order. This is done through a macro based DSL (domain specific > >> language). This patch adds macros to initialize a type and a type > >> group. > >> > >> When we transform the write based commands to use this new locking and > >> allocation schema, we use these types declarations. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Matan Barak <matanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> include/rdma/uverbs_ioctl.h | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > None of this makes any sense to me at this point in the series. > > > > Just use a sane meta-class type and the 'usual' linux static const > > initializer scheme. > > I could of course drop this patch and use static > initializes. However, this mean we'll re-write the next patch using > macro language in the next patch (as we introduce actions there). I > also think the declarations themselves look pretty tidy this way. Why would it be rewritten? The per-object static initializer should be basically good indefinately? The next series will introduce macros to add per-type functions but that shouldn't disturb the initializer. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
