[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250115184105.139aed9c@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:41:05 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Cc: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>, Vladimir Oltean
<vladimir.oltean@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "christophe.leroy@...roup.eu"
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "imx@...ts.linux.dev"
<imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 07/13] net: enetc: add RSS support for
i.MX95 ENETC PF
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 02:24:10 +0000 Wei Fang wrote:
> > Why create full ops for something this trivial?
>
> We add enetc_pf_hw_ops to implement different hardware ops
> for different chips. So that they can be called in common functions.
> Although the change is minor, it is consistent with the original
> intention of adding enetc_pf_hw_ops.
In other words you prefer ops.
Now imagine you have to refactor such piece of code in 10 drivers
and each of them has 2 layers of indirect ops like you do.
Unnecessary complexity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists