From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48366 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729507AbgHQUCt (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:02:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x543.google.com (mail-pg1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::543]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A39DC061348 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x543.google.com with SMTP id s15so8619307pgc.8 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: convert tasklets to use new tasklet_setup() API References: <20200817091617.28119-1-allen.cryptic@gmail.com> <20200817091617.28119-2-allen.cryptic@gmail.com> <202008171228.29E6B3BB@keescook> <161b75f1-4e88-dcdf-42e8-b22504d7525c@kernel.dk> <202008171246.80287CDCA@keescook> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 13:02:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <202008171246.80287CDCA@keescook> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Kees Cook Cc: Allen Pais , jdike@addtoit.com, richard@nod.at, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, 3chas3@gmail.com, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, airlied@linux.ie, daniel@ffwll.ch, sre@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, kys@microsoft.com, deller@gmx.de, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, maximlevitsky@gmail.com, oakad@yahoo.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, mporter@kernel.crashing.org, alex.bou9@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, martyn@welchs.me.uk, manohar.vanga@gmail.com, mitch@sfgoth.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntb@googlegroups.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Allen Pais , Romain Perier 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 >>>>> >>>>> 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. > changes end up getting whole-release delays because of the need to have > the API in place for everyone before patches to do the changes can be > sent to multiple maintainers, etc. Sure, that's always true of treewide changes like that. -- Jens Axboe