Bhanu (Venkata Bhanu Prakash) Gollapudi wrote: > Hi Joe/Robert, > > I have a question in the related area of discussion. > > Can we obtain the event_callback function in fc_lport_rport_ops and > fc_disc_rport_ops from the libfc_function_template rather than having > static functions(fc_lport_rport_callback and fc_disc_rport_callback). > This would provide flexibility to LLDs to take any driver specific > additional actions on that session along with the default action > performed by these functions (adding or removing the rport from the > list). Please let me know your thoughts. > Sounds reasonable to me.
If Joe is moving the rport list to the rport layer (not sure why it isn't moving to the lport layer) then he'll probably be moving the fc_disc_rport_callback() out of the disc layer and into the rport layer. Keep that in mind as depeneding on when development is done there are likely to be conflicts between the two patch sets, so one set will likely depend on the other. Your change would add two _ops pointers into the tt one for the "lport" (dns) callbacks and the other for the "rport" (currently disc) callbacks. I think they should be named something like rport_event_handler (assuming Joe is moving the list to the rport layer) and lport_rport_event_handler (ugh, this name is long). _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
