Tom,
I think this change has a lot of merits, but I would prefer to defer this sort of change until we have a more stable provider. Once we have removed the bugs and finished our update of the provider code (removing the custom DAPL data structures, etc.), then I think we should revisit this topic.
Does that sound reasonable? james On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:37:25AM +0300, Itamar Rabenstein wrote:Hi Tom, It looks very good to me but i want to ask why do we need the dat_common struct ? as we can see in dat.h dat_common is defined as : struct dat_common { struct dat_provider *provider; union dat_context context; }; and is being use as data member of any dat_* struct There are 9 places were we instance dat_common (dat_ia, dat_ep, dat_evd, ...) i think that that dat_* struct should be like this struct dat_ia { struct dat_provider *provider; union dat_context context; }; instaed of struct dat_ia { struct dat_common common; }; if we do it (only 5 lines more in code ) every time we want to call a function it will be ret = ia->provider->dat_ia_query(ia, NULL, instaed of ret = ia->common.provider->dat_ia_query(ia, NULL, i think that this is more readable.It is. B?ut I think it'll change even more later on - having a pointer to the method table in every object is an enormous waste of space, in the end the method should probably be only in a hca-level object, and all other objects should have public pointers to it. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
