On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:37:49PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:14:16AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:38:02AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > > > @@ -217,12 +217,12 @@ iommufd_object_put_and_try_destroy(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, > > > iommufd_object_remove(ictx, obj, obj->id, 0); > > > } > > > > > > -struct iommufd_object *_iommufd_object_alloc(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, > > > - size_t size, > > > - enum iommufd_object_type type); > > > +struct iommufd_object *iommufd_object_alloc_elm(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, > > > + size_t size, > > > + enum iommufd_object_type type); > > > > Maybe call it raw instead of elm? elm suggests it is an item in an > > array or likewise > > Or keep this as the __ and rename You mean "_" v.s. "__"? > #define __iommufd_object_alloc(ictx, ptr, type, obj) \ > > That one to _elm like this: > > #define iommufd_object_alloc_elm(ictx, ptr, type, elm) \ > container_of(_iommufd_object_alloc( \ > ictx, \ > sizeof(*(ptr)) + BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO( \ > offsetof(typeof(*(ptr)), \ > obj) != 0), \ > type), \ > typeof(*(ptr)), elm) > > #define iommufd_object_alloc(ictx, ptr, type) \ > iommufd_object_alloc_elm(ictx, ptr, type, obj) > > Then you can keep the pattern of _ being the allocation function of > the macro If I get it correctly, the change would be [From] level-0: iommufd_object_alloc() level-1: __iommufd_object_alloc() level-2: _iommufd_object_alloc() [To] level-0: iommufd_object_alloc() level-1: iommufd_object_alloc_elm() level-2: _iommufd_object_alloc() i.e. change the level-1 only. Thanks Nicolin
