[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200418125051.GA3473692@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:50:51 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com, jgg@...pe.ca,
parav@...lanox.com, galpress@...zon.com,
selvin.xavier@...adcom.com, sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com,
benve@...co.com, bharat@...lsio.com, xavier.huwei@...wei.com,
yishaih@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com, mkalderon@...vell.com,
aditr@...are.com, ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com,
pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/9] Implementation of Virtual Bus
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:10:26AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * virtual_bus.h - lightweight software bus
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2019-20 Intel Corporation
> + *
> + * Please see Documentation/driver-api/virtual_bus.rst for more information
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _VIRTUAL_BUS_H_
> +#define _VIRTUAL_BUS_H_
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +
> +struct virtbus_device {
> + struct device dev;
> + const char *name;
struct device already has a name, why do you need another one?
> + void (*release)(struct virtbus_device *);
A bus should have the release function, not the actual device itself. A
device should not need function pointers.
> + int id;
Shouldn't that be a specific type, like u64 or something?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists