On 8/17/20 12:48 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > 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 On naming? Implementation is just as it stands, from_tasklet() is totally generic which is why I objected to it. from_member()? Not great with naming... But I can see this going further and then we'll suddenly have tons of these. It's not good for readability. > 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. Sure, that's always true of treewide changes like that. -- Jens Axboe
