From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: [ofa-general] Re: EMM: Fixup return value handling of emm_notify()
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:40:46 +0200
Message-ID: <1207219246.8514.817.camel@twins>
References: <20080401205531.986291575@sgi.com>
	<20080401205635.793766935@sgi.com> <20080402064952.GF19189@duo.random>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021048460.27214@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021202450.28436@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<20080402212515.GS19189@duo.random>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021427210.30516@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804021427210.30516@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general>,
	<mailto:general-request@lists.openfabrics.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general>
List-Post: <mailto:general@lists.openfabrics.org>
List-Help: <mailto:general-request@lists.openfabrics.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general>,
	<mailto:general-request@lists.openfabrics.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org
Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, steiner@sgi.com, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, Izik Eidus <izike@qumranet.com>, Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@yahoo.com>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, daniel.blueman@quadrics.com, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 14:33 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > but anyway it's silly to be hardwired to such an interface that worst
> > of all requires switch statements instead of proper pointer to
> > functions and a fixed set of parameters and retval semantics for all
> > methods.
> 
> The EMM API with a single callback is the simplest approach at this point. 
> A common callback for all operations allows the driver to implement common 
> entry and exit code as seen in XPMem.

It seems to me that common code can be shared using functions? No need
to stuff everything into a single function. We have method vectors all
over the kernel, we could do a_ops as a single callback too, but we
dont.

FWIW I prefer separate methods.

> I guess we can complicate this more by switching to a different API or 
> adding additional emm_xxx() callback if need be but I really want to have 
> a strong case for why this would be needed. There is the danger of 
> adding frills with special callbacks in this and that situation that could 
> make the notifier complicated and specific to a certain usage scenario. 
> 
> Having this generic simple interface will hopefully avoid such things.
> 
>