[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88B766C272F2C64B944B21AD078333151C956BD34E@EXMAIL.ad.emulex.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:49:06 -0800
From: <Parav.Pandit@...lex.Com>
To: <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, <romieu@...zoreil.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 2/2] be2net: Added functionality to support RoCE driver
________________________________________
From: David Laight [David.Laight@...LAB.COM]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 7:08 PM
To: Pandit, Parav; romieu@...zoreil.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC 2/2] be2net: Added functionality to support RoCE driver
> > > + void *ocrdma_dev;
>
> > > Is there a reason why it could not be 'struct ocrdma_dev *o' ?
> [Parav] Yes. Reason is NIC driver publishes interface to RoCE
> driver. NIC driver is not aware of ocrdma_dev structure.
> So its void pointer.
If the argument can only ever be 'struct ocrdma_dev *'
then used the named structure pointer - you don't need to
expose the actual definition to the other drivers.
Makes it much more difficult to pass the address of an
inappropriate structure.
[Parav] If I understand correctly, I should do following.
Instead of void* in add(), remove(), event_handler(),
it should be struct ocrdma_dev* with forward declaration.
Is that correct understanding?
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists