[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BBD86DDD-6EA2-482F-A8E0-9BECA7E4DF9D@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 20:42:51 +0000
From: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
"eladr@...lanox.com" <eladr@...lanox.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 06/13] rocker: introduce worlds
infrastructure
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>> + int (*port_init)(struct rocker_port *rocker_port, void *priv,
>>> + void *port_priv);
>>
>> Yuck, void *. Can we do better?
>
> I see nothing wrong with this priv usage. It's done like this on many
> places. I think it is completely legit, since the call points are well
> defined and wrapped.
This particular call is perhaps the most troubling. In general, if there is one void parameter you may well get a compile error on a non-void parameter if you get them switched around. With two void parameters that is no longer the case, making it even more error-prone than the other uses of void *.
--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists