On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 07:10, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> > > Each family may have some amount of boilerplate > locking code that applies to most, or even all, > commands. > > This allows a family to handle such things in > a more generic way, by allowing it to > a) include private flags in each operation > b) specify a pre_doit hook that is called, > before an operation's doit() callback and > may return an error directly, > c) specify a post_doit hook that can undo > locking or similar things done by pre_doit, > and finally > d) include two private pointers in each info > struct passed between all these operations > including doit(). (It's two because I'll > need two in nl80211 -- can be extended.) Stupid question: Why not have a priv struct rather than an arbitrary array of two pointers? Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
