On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 21:54 +0530, Allen wrote: > > [...] > > > > 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. > > > > > > Not to incessantly bike shed on the naming, but I don't like > > > cast_out, it's not very descriptive. And it has connotations of > > > getting rid of something, which isn't really true. > > > > Um, I thought it was exactly descriptive: you're casting to the > > outer container. I thought about following the C++ dynamic casting > > style, so out_cast(), but that seemed a bit pejorative. What about > > outer_cast()? > > > > > FWIW, I like the from_ part of the original naming, as it has > > > some clues as to what is being done here. Why not just > > > from_container()? That should immediately tell people what it > > > does without having to look up the implementation, even before > > > this becomes a part of the accepted coding norm. > > > > I'm not opposed to container_from() but it seems a little less > > descriptive than outer_cast() but I don't really care. I always > > have to look up container_of() when I'm using it so this would just > > be another macro of that type ... > > > > So far we have a few which have been suggested as replacement > for from_tasklet() > > - out_cast() or outer_cast() > - from_member(). > - container_from() or from_container() > > from_container() sounds fine, would trimming it a bit work? like > from_cont(). I'm fine with container_from(). It's the same form as container_of() and I think we need urgent agreement to not stall everything else so the most innocuous name is likely to get the widest acceptance. James
