On 01/10/2017 02:09 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:45:20PM CET, f.faine...@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 <f.faine...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> 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
