On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:06 -0700, Yuri wrote:
> On 08/23/2013 10:02, John Baldwin wrote:
> > There is something similar: see devfs_ops_f in sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c.
>
> devfs_ops_f is a local static fileops object for devfs. I don't see how
> is this similar to our situation. devfs doesn't overload any other file
> system, they are a file system on their own.
>
I think the point is that devfs_ops_f provides several devfs-specific
methods and then "inherits" the rest by referencing the standard
vn_whatever functions. Since John recommended that you expose the
fo_whatever methods, I think he's suggesting you build your ops table by
providing your own close method and fill in the rest of the table with
the now-exposed kqueue ops methods.
It's not as neat and clean as "class epollops : public kqueueops {...}"
but it's probably not as bad as using clever macros to try to turn C
into a sort of C++Lite.
-- Ian
> >
> > I don't think we need a generic framework for this, just expose the
> > relevant fo_ methods for kqueue ops and use them in your epoll_ops.
>
> In epoll case, fileops object as a whole should be exposed and used for
> fp->f_ops, except fo_close which is overloaded.
>
> So would you think struct fileops* kqueue_fileops(); be ok then?
>
> Yuri
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
