[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200719160441.GK1383417@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 18:04:41 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: Call into DSA netdevice_ops wrappers
> If we have the core network stack reference DSA as a module then we
> force DSA to be either built-in or not, which is not very practical,
> people would still want a modular choice to be possible. The static
> inline only wraps indirect function pointer calls using definitions
> available at build time and actual function pointer substitution at run
> time, so we avoid that problem entirely that way.
Hi Florian
The jumping through the pointer avoids the inbuilt vs module problems.
The helpers themselves could be in a net/core/*.c file, rather than
static inline in a header. Is it worth adding a net/core/dsa.c for
code which must always be built in? At the moment, probably not. But
if we have more such redirect, maybe it would be?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists