[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module
On 4/22/2018 10:06 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:42:02PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER) + +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev, + struct failover **pfailover);Should we rename all these structs net_failover? It's possible to extend the concept to storage I think.
We could, the only downside is that the names become longer. i think we need to change the filenames and the function names also to be consistent.
+void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover); + +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops, + struct failover **pfailover); +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover); + +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev); + +#else + +static inline +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev, + struct failover **pfailover); +{ + return 0;Does this make callers do something sane? Shouldn't these return an error?
Yes. i think i should return -EOPNOTSUPP here, so that we fail when CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER is not enabled and the virtio-net driver is trying to create a failover device.
+} + +static inline +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover) +{ +} + +static inline +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops, + struct pfailover **pfailover); +{ + return 0; +}struct pfailover seems like a typo.
yes. will also change the return to -EOPNOTSUPP
+ +static inline +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover) +{ +} + +static inline +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev) +{ + return 0; +}Does anyone test return value of unregister? should this be void?
yes. can be changed to void.
+ +#endif + +#endif /* _NET_FAILOVER_H */
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]