On 6/8/05, Tom Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I said: > > > I am putting this out there to see what people think about this sort of > > > change. This only does it for one of the functions in dat provider, but > > > I will change it for all if this is accepted. >
Oops, I parsed the header and "sort of change" but missed "in dat provider", which did make the set clear. > Then Caitlin Bestler said: > > What I am not following is why you think DAT_IA_QUERY_FUNC > > is somehow different than all of the other functions in a DAT method > > table. Is this just a test run? If not, what is the criteria for deciding > > which methods are exposed and which have their method table > > underpinnings kept hidden? > > > Right, dat_ia_query() is not special. Just somewhere to start. > Anyway, one extra benefit of this change is that eliminates any risk of breaking kernel code using other existing DAT Providers. And it is easy for someone who has a large body of code using the function calls to use their own macro or inline function if they don't want to change their code. So consistency with other kernel code probably is the best guideline here. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
