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 )=-
next prev parent 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