Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:32:39 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> Cc: Ilja Van Sprundel <ivansprundel@ioactive.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r357233 - head/sys/net Message-ID: <20200204193239.GR1268@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3F7A5204-4437-4845-8E40-0BC5D1CD0A5B@FreeBSD.org> References: <202001282244.00SMiPrb077446@repo.freebsd.org> <20200130163455.GH1268@FreeBSD.org> <3F7A5204-4437-4845-8E40-0BC5D1CD0A5B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kristof, On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:26:48PM +0000, Kristof Provost wrote: K> > K> -/* The below interface used only by epair(4). */ K> > K> +/* The below interfaces are used only by epair(4). */ K> > K> +void if_clone_addif(struct if_clone *, struct ifnet *); K> > K> int if_clone_destroyif(struct if_clone *, struct ifnet *); K> > K> > IMHO, makes sense to move all these declaration into if_epair.c K> > itself. K> > K> Yeah, that does make sense. K> K> One minor issue is that it turns out that if_clone_destroyif() isn’t K> just used by if_epair, but also by the wifi code. K> K> How does this look? Yes, that's what I suggested. However, now given that net80211 also uses one of these methods, I'm not sure if isolating is a right move. In general, we consider if_clone KPI an internal one, don't we? I mean we don't expect 3rd party device drivers to use it. So may be it is fine that if_clone.h exposes those functions? If no, then we probably should hide both if_clone_addif and if_clone_destroyif away from if_clone.h and declare them as extern in epair and net80211. -- Gleb Smirnoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200204193239.GR1268>