RE: [Announce] Emulex LightPulse Device Driver

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>]

On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 17:47, Smart, James wrote:
> we receive comments. There are constructs in the driver that are likely not
> going to change, such as the logging facility. How contentious is this ?
> What about the IP interfaces? and so on.  Anything we receive, especially on
> the larger concepts in the driver, only helps us understand what's ahead. 

Well, what your logging facility tries to do (discriminated messages to
the console based on a mask) is extremely standard for drivers.  The way
you implement it is slightly, erm, less than desirable.  Having your own
version of sprintf in your driver is a definite no-no (why do you do
this?  You never seem actually to use the added formatting characters
like %E?).  But at least it doesn't do anything silly like try to ouput
to the serial port.

As far as the IP portion goes: layering and separation should really be
the order of the day---perhaps even to the point where you have a core
module with a scsi and an IP one that sit on top of it.

> Our plans are to complete most of the work list on the FAQ by early April.
> We'll try to make weekly drops on SourceForge, with each snapshot containing
> a log of the changes.  Once the code base matures, we will ping the lists
> again, asking for feedback.

OK, I'll look forward to it.

James