On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Sasha Levin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 11:53 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:42 +0300, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > Allow specifying an optional parameter when registering an >> > ioport range. The callback functions provided by the registering >> > module will be called with the same parameter. >> > >> > This may be used to keep context during callbacks on IO operations. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]> >> > --- >> > tools/kvm/include/kvm/ioport.h | 3 ++ >> > tools/kvm/ioport.c | 54 >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/tools/kvm/include/kvm/ioport.h >> > b/tools/kvm/include/kvm/ioport.h >> > index 8253938..2a8d74d 100644 >> > --- a/tools/kvm/include/kvm/ioport.h >> > +++ b/tools/kvm/include/kvm/ioport.h >> > @@ -25,11 +25,14 @@ struct kvm; >> > struct ioport_operations { >> > bool (*io_in)(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port, void *data, int size, u32 >> > count); >> > bool (*io_out)(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port, void *data, int size, u32 >> > count); >> > + bool (*io_in_param)(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port, void *data, int size, >> > u32 count, void *param); >> > + bool (*io_out_param)(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port, void *data, int size, >> > u32 count, void *param); >> >> So why not make that 'param' unconditional for io_in and io_out and just >> pass NULL if it's not needed? >> > > I've wanted to keep the original interface clean, Most of the IO port > users don't (and probably won't) require a parameter.
Well now struct ioport_operations isn't very clean is it - or the code that needs to determine which function pointer to call?-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
