On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:42:02PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER)
> +
> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
> + struct failover **pfailover);
Should we rename all these structs net_failover?
It's possible to extend the concept to storage I think.
> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover);
> +
> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
> + struct failover **pfailover);
> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover);
> +
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev);
> +
> +#else
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
> + struct failover **pfailover);
> +{
> + return 0;
Does this make callers do something sane?
Shouldn't these return an error?
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
> + struct pfailover **pfailover);
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
struct pfailover seems like a typo.
> +
> +static inline
> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
Does anyone test return value of unregister?
should this be void?
> +
> +#endif
> +
> +#endif /* _NET_FAILOVER_H */
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
