On 3/24/21 3:11 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
25.03.2021 01:01, John Hubbard пишет:
On 3/24/21 2:31 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
...
+#include <linux/kobject.h>
+
+struct cma_kobject {
+ struct cma *cma;
+ struct kobject kobj;
If you'll place the kobj as the first member of the struct, then
container_of will be a no-op.
However, *this does not matter*. Let's not get carried away. If
container_of() ends up as a compile-time addition of +8, instead
of +0, there is not going to be a visible effect in the world.
Or do you have some perf data to the contrary?
Sometimes these kinds of things matter. But other times, they are
just pointless to fret about, and this is once such case.
Performance is out of question here, my main point is about maintaining
In that case, there is even less reason to harass people about the order
of members of a struct.
a good coding style. Otherwise there is no point in not embedding kobj
into cma struct as well, IMO.
We really don't need to worry about the order of members in a struct,
from a "coding style" point of view. It is a solid step too far.
Sorry if that sounds a little too direct. But this review has tended to
go quite too far into nitpicks that are normally left as-is, and I've
merely picked one that is particularly questionable. I realize that other
coding communities have their own standards. Here, I'm explaining what
I have observed about linux-mm and linux-kernel, which needs to be respected.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
