Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:06:47 +0300

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:42:02PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER)
> +
> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
> +		    struct failover **pfailover);

Should we rename all these structs net_failover?
It's possible to extend the concept to storage I think.

> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover);
> +
> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
> +		      struct failover **pfailover);
> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover);
> +
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev);
> +
> +#else
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
> +		    struct failover **pfailover);
> +{
> +	return 0;

Does this make callers do something sane?
Shouldn't these return an error?

> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
> +		      struct pfailover **pfailover);
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

struct pfailover seems like a typo.

> +
> +static inline
> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

Does anyone test return value of unregister?
should this be void?

> +
> +#endif
> +
> +#endif /* _NET_FAILOVER_H */