>
> > > +/**
> > > + * fwctl_alloc_device - Allocate a fwctl
> > > + * @parent: Physical device that provides the FW interface
> > > + * @ops: Driver ops to register
> > > + * @drv_struct: 'struct driver_fwctl' that holds the struct fwctl_device
> > > + * @member: Name of the struct fwctl_device in @drv_struct
> > > + *
> > > + * This allocates and initializes the fwctl_device embedded in the drv_struct.
> > > + * Upon success the pointer must be freed via fwctl_put(). Returns NULL on
> > > + * failure. Returns a 'drv_struct *' on success, NULL on error.
> > > + */
> > > +#define fwctl_alloc_device(parent, ops, drv_struct, member) \
> > > + container_of(_fwctl_alloc_device( \
> > > + parent, ops, \
> > > + sizeof(drv_struct) + \
> > > + BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO( \
> > > + offsetof(drv_struct, member))), \
> > Doesn't that fire a build_bug when the member is at the start of drv_struct?
> > Or do I have that backwards?
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(true) == failure, evaluates to void
> BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(true) == fails, evaluates to 0
> BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(false) == false, evaluates to 0
>
> It is a bit confusing name, it is not ON_ZERO it is BUG_ON return ZERO
Ah. That indeed got me. ouch.
>
> > Does container_of() safely handle a NULL?
>
> Generally no, nor does it handle ERR_PTR, but it does work for both if
> the offset is 0.
Ah. Good point, I'd neglected the zero offset meaning it is really
just a fancy pointer type cast.
>
> The BUILD_BUG guarentees the 0 offset both so that the casting inside
> _fwctl_alloc_device() works and we can use safely use container_of()
> to enforce the type check.
>
> What do you think about writing it like this instead:
>
> #define fwctl_alloc_device(parent, ops, drv_struct, member) \
> ({ \
> static_assert(__same_type(struct fwctl_device, \
> ((drv_struct *)NULL)->member)); \
> static_assert(offsetof(drv_struct, member) == 0); \
> (drv_struct *)_fwctl_alloc_device(parent, ops, \
> sizeof(drv_struct)); \
> })
>
> ?
>
> In some ways I like it better..
Seems more readable to me and avoids entertaining corners of the previous approach.
Jonathan
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
