On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:25:41PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > Quoting Bharata B Rao (2017-05-31 23:06:46) > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:52:14AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > The code managing DRCs[0] has quite a few things that are more > > > complicated than they need to be. In particular the object > > > representing a DRC has a bunch of method pointers, despite the fact > > > that there are currently no subclasses, and even if there were the > > > method implementations would be unlikely to differ. > > > > So you are getting rid of a few methods. How about other methods ? > > Specially attach and detach which have incorporated all the logic needed > > to handle logical and physical DRs into their implementations ? > > I would avoid any methods that incorporate special-casing for > physical vs. logical DRCs, since that seems like a good logical > starting point for moving to 'physical'/'logical' DRC > sub-classes to help simplify the increasingly complicated > state-tracking.
Right, I'm looking at making subclasses for each of the DRC types.
Possibly with intermediate subclasses for physical vs. logical, we'll
see how it works out.
> I also don't think we should expose DRC internal fields to
> outside callers (which attach/detach would involve).
Well.. just changing attach/detach to plain functions instead of
methods wouldn't break that.
> This
> series does that to some extent with the RTAS calls, but
> since those are now moved to spapr_drc.c it makes more sense.
Right - the semantics of the RTAS calls are tied closely to the DRC
semantics, so I don't think there's any point considering the RTAS
calls to be "outside" the DRC code itself.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
