On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:20:48PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Seth Jennings wrote: > > > > Thanks a lot for having started the work on this! > > > > > > We will be reviewing it carefully in the coming days and will getting > > > back > > > to you (I was surprised to see that that diffstat indicates that it's > > > actually more code than our whole kgraft implementation including the > > > consistency model :) ). > > > > The structure allocation and sysfs stuff is a lot of (mundane) code. > > Lots of boring error path handling too. > > Also, lpc_create_object(), lpc_create_func(), lpc_create_patch(), > lpc_create_objects(), lpc_create_funcs(), ... they all are pretty much > alike, and are asking for some kind of unification ... perhaps iterator > for generic structure initialization?
The allocation and initialization code is very simple and straightforward. I really don't see a problem there. Can you give an example of what you mean by "iterator for generic structure initialization"? > I am not also really fully convinced that we need the patch->object->funcs > abstraction hierarchy (which also contributes to the structure allocation > being rather a spaghetti copy/paste code) ... wouldn't patch->funcs be > suffcient, with the "object" being made just a property of the function, > for example? > > > Plus, I show that kernel/kgraft.c + kernel/kgraft_files.c is > > 906+193=1099. I'd say they are about the same size :) > > Which is still seem to me to be a ratio worth thinking about improving :) Yes, this code doesn't have a consistency model, but it does have some other non-kGraft things like dynamic relocations, deferred module patching, and a unified API. There's really no point in comparing lines of code. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
