public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrections to Documentation/rbtree.txt
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:09:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47EA591F.9020507@mev.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200803251324.08769.rob@landley.net>

On 25/03/08 18:24, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 06:02:22 Ian Abbott wrote:
>> On 20/03/08 18:39, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On Thursday 20 March 2008 10:29:57 Ian Abbott wrote:
>>>> From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
>>>>
>>>> The description of the rb_entry() macro in Documentation/rbtree.txt
>>>> seems incorrect. This patch improves it (hopefully).  Also I changed the
>>>> example code to call the previous 'my_search()' example instead of an
>>>> undefined 'mysearch()'.
>>> I have no objection to the patch (and the my_search thing seems like an
>>> obvious typo), but is there a reason to prefer rb_entry() rather than
>>> container_of()?  If so, the rationale might be a good thing to add to the
>>> documentation...
>> I don't know the rationale, but all the code I can see uses rb_entry()
>> and not container_of().
> 
> Except container_of() works, which is a nice thing to know, and it already 
> mentions rb_entry() as another way to do it.  If someone could explain _why_ 
> to use one over the other, that would be a good thing to add.

Let's see if Andrea Arcangeli can still remember the rationale from 9 
years ago! :-)

container_of() works just as well, but _none_ of the existing code in 
the kernel uses it to access the container of the struct rb_node; they 
all use rb_entry(), including the example code in include/linux/rbtree.h.

> Again, I don't care much either way, I just want to know what the point is of 
> choosing one over the other that makes changing what's there worth bothering 
> with.  You're changing the documentation to hide the fact that rb_entry() is 
> basically another name for container_of(), and this is supposed to be an 
> improvement?

Personally I have no preference for rb_entry() over container_of(), but 
as all the code in the kernel uses rb_entry() it seems better if the 
examples in the documentation use it too.

-- 
-=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd.    E-mail: <abbotti@mev.co.uk>        )=-
-=( Tel: +44 (0)161 477 1898   FAX: +44 (0)161 718 3587         )=-

  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-26 14:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-20 15:29 [PATCH] Corrections to Documentation/rbtree.txt Ian Abbott
2008-03-20 18:39 ` Rob Landley
2008-03-25 11:02   ` Ian Abbott
2008-03-25 18:24     ` Rob Landley
2008-03-26 14:09       ` Ian Abbott [this message]
2008-03-25 11:29   ` Ian Abbott

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47EA591F.9020507@mev.co.uk \
    --to=abbotti@mev.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rob@landley.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox