[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAExiqTLJG38DX_6C2Gaf6jE8-GThznML_-nkzs+57fU72QPW7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:32:58 +0100
From: Daniele Di Proietto <daniele.di.proietto@...il.com>
To: Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: Do not use private netdev_vport fields
The motivation for the change is to make datapath.c independent from
the actual implementation of the vport. The problem came up when
experimenting with other vport implementations and this type of change
will help identifying layering violations.
You are perfectly right, however, that in this form the code does not
improve much: we should rather provide a vport_index() call, and
implement one in each of the vports.
Thoughts?
2015-01-06 23:28 GMT+01:00 Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:02 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>> From: Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:16:11 -0800
>>>
>>>> Function return type and function name should be on same line,
>>>> otherwise looks good.
>>>
>>> I disagree, where is the code in the tree that needs this?
>>
>> Most of function definitions that I have seen are defined like this. I
>> was pointing out coding style issue.
>
> About the actual change, I think it is a cleanup. netdev_vport_index()
> hides the implementation from datapath.c. I hope Daniele will explain
> need for the change.
--
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