On 21/03/14 13:14, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:01:09AM +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote: >> I am wondering how to re-organize these so that the code is not >> duplicated across 3-4 drivers as well as allow people to easily add more >> encaps in the future. >> One way will be to pull all common routines into a common file and have >> different option sets and different inits. Another will be to have >> "encaps" as a parameter to a common driver. This, however will make all >> params optional making option parsing ugly and prone to coding errors. > The user-visible command-line options will be different (e.g. L2TPv3 rx > cookie). Therefore, I suggest having independent user-facing netdevs. > > In other words, give each encapsulation its own NetdevFooOptions in > qapi-schema.json and a net_init_foo() function. > > qemu -netdev gre,... -netdev l2tp,...
OK. > > The actual implementation could be shared. Maybe something like: > net/encap.c - common code for encapsulation/tunneling > net/encap.h - header used by L2TPv3 and GRE > net/l2tpv3.c - L2TPv3 specific code and net_init_l2tp() > net/gre.c - GRE specific code and net_init_gre() > > How exactly the net/encap.h interface looks is something you need to > decide based on the details. Does it make sense to have a common > NetdevEncap struct that can be embedded and has function pointers for > protocol-specific hooks? Or is it better to just provide common > functions and let protocols use them as a library? It's up to you. OK. Undestood. I will probably collect all common routines and merge them into a library. Once that is done I will submit a revised patch that does l2tpv3 and gre. A > > Stefan >
