> >
> > typedef dladm_status_t pd_getf_t(const char *, char **, uint_t *);
> > typedef dladm_status_t pd_setf_t(const char *, val_desc_t *, uint_t);
> >
> > i.e., why don't they both take val_desc_t * as the second arg, which
> > seems to be more general?
> >
> I did this based on the original libwladm code. I also thought about making
> them consistent when I did the change, but I found that taking val_desc_t *
> as the argument of pd_getf_t only add more complexities. It is because we
> only expect the result from the xxx_get() function to be in the form of
> string, and the caller allocates the memory to keep the result makes things
> easier.
Speaking only from eyeballing the code, so I could well be missing something:
Couldn't this be achieved by making a wrapper function whose vd_val
contains the needed info needed to get the prop_val and the val_cnt? Something
along the lines of:
typedef struct foo_s {
char **prop_val;
int *val_cnt
}foo_t;
foo_t prop;
val_desc_t v = {NULL, &prop};
It creates extra indirections in the wrapper function, but
val_desc_t is a bit more flexible for me, because I need to pass in
4 pieces of info: link_name, prop_name, prop_val, an val_cnt
> > Also, the third arg in the pd_setf_t signature looks a bit confusing.
> > Does this indicate the count of number of elements in vd_val?
> > or is it the number of val_desc_t elements itself? (Could use some
> > comments in the code, since its hard to remember these semantics)
> >
> It's the number of the val_desc_t elements. As the type of vd_val (void *)
Ok, could you please stick a little comment in there to this effect?
--Sowmini
