Logan,
> > In preparation for unconditionally passing the
> > struct tasklet_struct pointer to all tasklet
> > callbacks, switch to using the new tasklet_setup()
> > and from_tasklet() to pass the tasklet pointer explicitly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/dma/plx_dma.c | 7 +++----
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c
> > index db4c5fd453a9..f387c5bbc170 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c
> > @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ static void plx_dma_stop(struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev)
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> >
> > -static void plx_dma_desc_task(unsigned long data)
> > +static void plx_dma_desc_task(struct tasklet_struct *t)
> > {
> > - struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = (void *)data;
> > + struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = from_tasklet(plxdev, t, desc_task);
>
> The discussion I saw on another thread suggested the private macro
> from_tasklet() would be replaced with something generic. So isn't this
> patchset a bit premature?
Yes, but efforts to replace it with something generic was not well accepted.
We were left with either using a private macro from_tasklet() or use
well known container_of(). I have left it to the maintainers to decide
which one they prefer.
--
- Allen
