On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:30:34PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> This provides a bit more type safety.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h
> index cfade337d4db..fadd5198b3e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h
> @@ -75,7 +75,12 @@ struct etnaviv_gem_object {
>
> struct etnaviv_gem_userptr userptr;
> };
> -#define to_etnaviv_bo(x) container_of(x, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base)
> +
> +static inline
> +struct etnaviv_gem_object *to_etnaviv_bo(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> +{
> + return container_of(obj, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base);
> +}
I've always wondered about patches like this, and wondered how they're
supposed to be more type safe.
The only thing which I can see is that the inline function will warn if
you pass it a const or volatile pointer, whereas container_of() will
only warn if it's passed a volatile pointer. Apart from that, I don't
see any difference between the two.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
