On 08/23/2013 13:36, Ian Lepore wrote: > 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. So you are suggesting to just make kqueue fileops public? This was my first suggestion, and this was rejected by Roman Divacky (who was supposed to check it in) as very ugly. I did this through the method kqueue_ops(), not directly though. So can we agree on way to be used here? Way#1: struct fileops* kqueue_fileops() which is used as the base for epoll fileops. Way#2: make kqueueops public and use as a base for epoll. > > 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. Whatever makes code more clear is better. I don't think I suggested to turn C into anything. YuriReceived on Fri Aug 23 2013 - 20:18:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:40 UTC