On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 04:12:29PM +0800, Cathy Zhou wrote:
> >
> >I agree that the compare, get, ... semantics are generic,
> >but the actual comparison, checking, ... is type specific.
> >So if you want to make the logic general, I guess you need
> >to provide the mechanism for adding new types, without the
> >need to change the generic code.
> >
> The comparison will be most based on "char *", and the real value will be
> change from uint_t to void *. Note that what I inclined to do now is to
> make the current do_set_prop() function to be a libdladm() API which can be
> called by each library. Using this model, different library can define its
> own table of property table, and each property can define its own
> xxx_check(), xxx_set(), xxx_get(), xxx_getmod() callback functions.
>
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting to, for example, have
wladm_set_prop() pass its property and callback table to your new do_set_prop()
function?
if so, how will dladm_set_prop() be implemented?
don't you have a circular dependency now?
(i.e. dladm_set_prop()->wladm_set_prop()->do_set_prop())
(libdladm) (libwladm) (libdladm)
I think this was the reason we didn't factor out the common code.
maybe we need a separate library to hold your new do_set_prop() code?
eric
