>> I talked about this restructure with Meem today, and he feels strongly
>> (which I agree) that after the restructure, the function names should be
>> refactored to match the merged library names.
>>
>> For example, currently the liblaadm has functions named as laadm_xxx() (for
>> example, laadm_create()), and you can see from my webrev that those
>> functions will return DLADM_STATUS_XXX because I merged the error codes to
>> share a single name space. The more nature function naming after the
>> merging should be change those names into dladm_aggr_xxx().
>>
> what's the reason for changing the function names?
>
> to me, the merged libdladm would be similar to libc - it consists of
> multiple distinct APIs that could potentially evolve or be used separately.
> e.g. to use wireless APIs, an app would just include libwladm.h (to be renamed
> wladm.h?), which in turn would include libdladm.h which contains the common
> error codes.
>
Right. That's the plan.
> by changing the interfaces to dladm_<type>_xxx(), they would appear to be
> part of a larger API rather than distinct pieces. is this the intention?
>
No. It will not be a larger API and we are planning to keep the current
layers of libraries even we are merging them into one library. We choose to
prefix all functions with "dladm" because they are all part of datalink (dl)
management API, while I don't think we have a good justification for the
current laadm_xxx() names as there is no utility named laadm. Note that
libdladm is different from libc in this respect, as its components (aggr,
vlan, iptun, wlan ...) are tied more closely - for example, when each
specific component execute certain operation, it needs to call back to the
dladm common routines to manipulate the link ids, and to persist the
configuration. As an example, a laadm_create() will be like:
laadm_create()
{
dladm_create_linkid(aggr, DLADM_CLASS_AGGR, &aggrid);
dladm_create_conf();
dladm_set_conf_field();
dladm_write_conf();
i_laadm_ioctl(DLDIOC_CREATE_AGGR);
}
In addition, the function will return the error code from a unique name space.
>
> no, WL_ was taken by wifi_ioctl.h. that's why wladm_ was chosen.
> I suggest you use dladm_wlan_ if you were to go ahead with the rename.
>
OK.
Thanks
- Cathy
