> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:45:10AM +0000, Chen, Mike Ximing wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:54:17AM -0600, Mike Ximing Chen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -232,6 +240,7 @@ struct dlb_device_ops dlb_pf_ops = {
> > > > .create_dir_queue = dlb_pf_create_dir_queue,
> > > > .create_ldb_port = dlb_pf_create_ldb_port,
> > > > .create_dir_port = dlb_pf_create_dir_port,
> > > > + .start_domain = dlb_pf_start_domain,
> > >
> > > Why do you have a "callback" when you only ever call one function? Why
> > > is that needed at all?
> > >
> > In our next submission, we are going to add virtual function (VF) support.
> > The
> > callbacks for VFs are different from those for PF which is what we support
> > in this
> > submission. We can defer the introduction of the callback structure to
> > when we
> > add the VF support. But since we have many callback functions, that approach
> > will generate many changes in then "existing" code. We thought that putting
> > the callback structure in place now would make the job of adding VF support
> > easier.
> > Is it OK?
>
> No, do not add additional complexity when it is not needed. It causes
> much more review work and I and no one else have any idea that
> "something might be coming in the future", so please do not make our
> lives harder.
>
> Make it simple, and work, now. You can always add additional changes
> later, if it is ever needed.
>
Sure. We will remove the callback structure from this patch set.
Thanks for reviewing
Mike
