[openib-general] [RFC] new ibv_get_devices() API -- avoid dlists
Michael Maybe its a naming thing? We can call the list Michael iterator, does this make it less ugly? I thought about this, but it feels like overkill for something pretty simple. So how about just doing /* put list of devices in list and return length of list */ extern int ibv_get_device_list(struct ibv_device * const **list); /* free a list of devices from ibv_get_device_list */ extern void ibv_free_device_list(struct ibv_device * const *list); which could be used as: struct ibv_device * const *list; int list_len; list_len = ibv_get_device_list(list); /* ... */ ibv_free_device_list(list); Or are the consts too confusing? Should we be a little less safe but make it nice and simple and just do extern int ibv_get_device_list(struct ibv_device ***list); and so on? - R. ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: (SPAM?) [openib-general] [RFC] new ibv_get_devices() API -- avoid dlists
Roland Dreier wrote: Or are the consts too confusing? Should we be a little less safe but make it nice and simple and just do The const confuses me somewhat. extern int ibv_get_device_list(struct ibv_device ***list); Is ***list really what we want here? Can we just get away with **list? Would something like: struct ibv_device * ibv_get_device(index); work as well? - Sean ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] [RFC] new ibv_get_devices() API -- avoid dlists
So how about just doing /* put list of devices in list and return length of list */ extern int ibv_get_device_list(struct ibv_device * const **list); /* free a list of devices from ibv_get_device_list */ extern void ibv_free_device_list(struct ibv_device * const *list); I like it much better than what we have now. Clean, simple and easy to understand. Or are the consts too confusing? Should we be a little less safe but make it nice and simple and just do I often find consts a bit of a nuisance for what they give me; but am fine either way. Both are simple enough. Johann ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: (SPAM?) [openib-general] [RFC] new ibv_get_devices() API -- avoid dlists
Is ***list really what we want here? Can we just get away with **list? Would something like: struct ibv_device * ibv_get_device(index); I would prefer one call to get the entire structure. Another option might be: struct ibv_device ** ibv_get_device() where it returns a list which is null terminated so you do not need to return the length. Johann ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: (SPAM?) Re: (SPAM?) [openib-general] [RFC] new ibv_get_devices() API -- avoid dlists
Roland Dreier wrote: Is ***list really what we want here? Can we just get away with **list? Yes -- a single device is represented by a struct ibv_device *. So an array of devices is represented by a struct ibv_device **. And a pointer to such an array is struct ibv_device ***. I understand. This is just API that I've seen that used '***'. Why not just return a copy of the array? Would something like: struct ibv_device * ibv_get_device(index); work as well? That could work as well. But it doesn't handle hotplug quite as well. By returning a snapshot of all the known devices at a given moment, we at least have a chance at doing something sensible with devices appearing or disappearing. This doesn't seem any worse to me. The user can reference device_array[i] or call ibv_get_device(i). I need to spend more time understanding how userspace hotplug will work. - Sean ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
Re: [openib-general] [RFC] new ibv_get_devices() API -- avoid dlists
It seemed faintly preferable to tell the caller how big the array was rather than forcing the caller to count for itself. If you really wanted that, I would be more inclined towards: struct ibv_device ** ibv_get_device(*length_ptr) and if you do not want length, you could pass a null length_ptr. But since I also cannot think of a strong case for it, I prefer the cleaner interface of leaving it out. Johann ___ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
