RE: [v4, 0/9] Freescale DPAA FMan
From: Liberman Igal
Date: Mon Aug 10 2015 - 16:01:14 EST
Thank you for your feedback.
I understand your concerns regarding the FMan driver, we've come a long way from where we started but still there are issues.
The community support is critical for getting the code to the desired quality level and I appreciate the support I receive from you and from the other previous reviewers.
In order to reduce the code scattering I plan to put together all the code for a certain IP block in one file.
For example FMan port in his current state in /drivers/net/freescale/fman/:
---- fm_port_ext.h (API for other drivers/modules)
---- fman_port.c (flib)
New proposed structure in /drivers/net/freescale/fman/:
fman_port_drv.c (includes simplified code from fm_port.c, fman_port.c and fm_port_drv.c)
fman_port_drv.h (exported structures and API, minimal)
Of-course, I'll do the same for other modules (MAC, FMan itself).
After this structure change we get:
- Subdirectories completely removed
- Layering reduced, each module becomes much flatter, with one source and header file
- Fewer number of files (sources and headers)
- Namespace pollution drastically reduced
- General complexity of the driver reduced.
I would appreciate your comments about the steps described above.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 1:31 AM
> To: Liberman Igal-B31950 <Igal.Liberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wood Scott-B07421 <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716 <madalin.bucur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx; joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Subject: Re: [v4, 0/9] Freescale DPAA FMan
> From: <igal.liberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:25:16 +0300
> > The Freescale Data Path Acceleration Architecture (DPAA) is a set of
> > hardware components on specific QorIQ multicore processors.
> > This architecture provides the infrastructure to support simplified
> > sharing of networking interfaces and accelerators by multiple CPU
> > cores and the accelerators.
> I think the directory and code structure of this new driver is quite excessive.
> Because you've split things up _so_ much, you have to have all of these
> directories, and even worse and much more important to me you have to
> export so many functions from one source file to another.
> I think this is way too much.
> For example, in one file you have a bunch of initialization routines.
> init_a(), init_b(), init_c(), and you export them all. Then they are always
> called in sequence:
> This is completely pointless. You just needed to export one function which
> calls all three functions.
> The namespace pollution of this driver is out of control.
> You really need to completely rework the architecture and layout of this
> driver before I will even begin to review it again.
> And the lack of review interest by other developers should be an indication
> to you how undesirable this code submission is to read.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/