On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:26:54PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 18/10/24 02:37, 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 > > > > #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) > > > Bikeshedding, yay :) > > After starring at it for 10min - honestly - ditch > iommufd_object_alloc_elm() and just pass "obj" (or "common.obj" in that > single other occasion) to iommufd_object_alloc(). > > __iommufd_object_alloc() - a function - will the actual alloc, > iommufd_object_alloc() - a macro - will do the types + call the __ > variant, simple and no naming issues. All three-level helpers have callers. So that would be a bigger patch than I expected to include in this series. Maybe I should just drop this patch, since it's not functionally necessary. If we want to clean the whole thing, can do with a separate series. > And it would be real nice if it was "iobj" not this "obj" which is way > too generic. Thanks, Again, the renaming would be across the whole folder, not only here. So, I think it could be a separate cleanup series later. Thanks Nicolin
