On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 14:33 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > but anyway it's silly to be hardwired to such an interface that worst > > of all requires switch statements instead of proper pointer to > > functions and a fixed set of parameters and retval semantics for all > > methods. > > The EMM API with a single callback is the simplest approach at this point. > A common callback for all operations allows the driver to implement common > entry and exit code as seen in XPMem.
It seems to me that common code can be shared using functions? No need to stuff everything into a single function. We have method vectors all over the kernel, we could do a_ops as a single callback too, but we dont. FWIW I prefer separate methods. > I guess we can complicate this more by switching to a different API or > adding additional emm_xxx() callback if need be but I really want to have > a strong case for why this would be needed. There is the danger of > adding frills with special callbacks in this and that situation that could > make the notifier complicated and specific to a certain usage scenario. > > Having this generic simple interface will hopefully avoid such things. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
