On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 13:10 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 01:00:33PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 13:02 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Since both threads seem to have petered out, let me suggest in > > kernel.h: > > > > #define cast_out(ptr, container, member) \ > > container_of(ptr, typeof(*container), member) > > > > It does what you want, the argument order is the same as > > container_of with the only difference being you name the containing > > structure instead of having to specify its type. > > I like this! Shall I send this to Linus to see if this can land in > -rc2 for use going forward? Sure ... he's probably been lurking on this thread anyway ... it's about time he got off his arse^Wthe fence and made an executive decision ... James _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
