Re: DiskDevice API v2.1

"Axel D=F6rfler"  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Yes, the caller would have to make sure, that the parameters are 
> > > valid.
> > Doesn't it seem like it would be clearer and less error prone just 
> > to 
> > have a specific function per operation=3D3F Yes, that means more 
> > functions, 
> > but IMHO that's a reasonable tradeoff for better typechecking and 
> > greater ease of implementation.
> 
> It depends on where this generic function would be. From userland, we 
> could have 20 functions that will all create the parameter set for 
> this 
> one generic function, which is a syscall.

We could also have 20 syscalls, which are mapped to one FS API 
function. That would allow for easy kernel side parameter checking.

> The underlying FS could also have this one generic function. Having 
> only one generic function (or a small set of functions) would make 
> the 
> FS API easier.

That's what I thought too.

CU, Ingo