On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:44:34PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/17/20 12:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 06:56:47AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 8/17/20 2:15 AM, Allen Pais wrote: > >>> From: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> 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. > >> > >> Who came up with the idea to add a macro 'from_tasklet' that is just > >> container_of? container_of in the code would be _much_ more readable, > >> and not leave anyone guessing wtf from_tasklet is doing. > >> > >> I'd fix that up now before everything else goes in... > > > > As I mentioned in the other thread, I think this makes things much more > > readable. It's the same thing that the timer_struct conversion did > > (added a container_of wrapper) to avoid the ever-repeating use of > > typeof(), long lines, etc. > > But then it should use a generic name, instead of each sub-system using > some random name that makes people look up exactly what it does. I'm not > huge fan of the container_of() redundancy, but adding private variants > of this doesn't seem like the best way forward. Let's have a generic > helper that does this, and use it everywhere. I'm open to suggestions, but as things stand, these kinds of treewide changes end up getting whole-release delays because of the need to have the API in place for everyone before patches to do the changes can be sent to multiple maintainers, etc. -- Kees Cook _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
