From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: switchdev: Prepare for deferred functions modifying objects Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:57:18 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20170109204523.5843-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20170109204523.5843-2-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20170110100901.GB1827@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, andrew@lunn.ch, marcelo.leitner@gmail.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:33877 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756081AbdAJR5U (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:57:20 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id y143so8840842pfb.1 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:57:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170110100901.GB1827@nanopsycho> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/10/2017 02:09 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:45:20PM CET, f.fainelli@gmail.com wrote: >> In preparation for adding support for deferred dump operations, allow >> specifying a deferred function whose signature allows read/write >> objects. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli >> --- >> net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >> index 017801f9dbaa..3d70ad02c617 100644 >> --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >> +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >> @@ -100,11 +100,14 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(deferred_lock); >> >> typedef void switchdev_deferred_func_t(struct net_device *dev, >> const void *data); >> +typedef void switchdev_deferred_func_rw_t(struct net_device *dev, >> + void *data); >> >> struct switchdev_deferred_item { >> struct list_head list; >> struct net_device *dev; >> switchdev_deferred_func_t *func; >> + switchdev_deferred_func_rw_t *func_rw; > > I'm missing why you need to have 2 funcs here. Why you just can't re-use > func? I wanted to let the existing callers be passed down a const void *data, and not update them with void *data, since there is value in keeping that annotated. This may be considered overkill, I don't know. -- Florian