Re: [PATCH] block: convert tasklets to use new tasklet_setup() API

[Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.

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.

-- 
Jens Axboe