On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 07:17:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/19/20 6:11 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 07:00:53AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 8/18/20 1:00 PM, 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. > >> > >> 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. > > > > I agree, if we want to bike shed, I don't like this color either. > > > >> 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. > > > > Why are people hating on the well-known and used container_of()? > > > > If you really hate to type the type and want a new macro, what about > > 'container_from()'? (noun/verb is nicer to sort symbols by...) > > > > But really, why is this even needed? > > container_from() or from_container(), either works just fine for me > in terms of naming. > > I think people are hating on it because it makes for _really_ long > lines, and it's arguably cleaner/simpler to just pass in the pointer > type instead. Then you end up with lines like this: > > struct request_queue *q = > container_of(work, struct request_queue, requeue_work.work); > > But I'm not the one that started this addition of from_tasklet(), my > objection was adding a private macro for something that should be > generic functionality. Agreed. > Hence I think we either need to provide that, or > tell the from_tasklet() folks that they should just use container_of(). Also agreed, thanks. greg k-h
