Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work

Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-25T09:44:49Z

2010/6/25 Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 17:23 +0800, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 2010/6/25 Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>:
>> > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 15:48 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:12 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It is better to add "void *data" field in this struct to allow same
>> >> > function can be used for multiple struct irq_work.
>> >>
>> >> No, simply do:
>> >>
>> >> struct my_foo {
>> >>   struct irq_work work;
>> >>   /* my extra data */
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> void my_func(struct irq_work *work)
>> >> {
>> >>   struct my_foo *foo = container_of(work, struct my_foo, work);
>> >>
>> >>   /* tada! */
>> >> }
>> >
>> > Yes. This works too. But Adding "void *data" field is helpful if you do
>> > not embed struct irq_work into another struct.
>>
>>
>> That's what makes most sense. If you use work->data to put foo, then
>> you can also do the opposite. Now the best is to pick the choice that
>> gives you a real type and a typechecking, and not an error-prone and
>> obfuscated void *
>>
>> This is the way things are made in the kernel. struct work_struct, struct list,
>> struct rcu_head, etc... are all embedded into a container, so that we can
>> use container_of.
>
> container_of has no full type checking too.

You're right. There is nothing that guarantees B is contained into A,
I mean the code is supposed
to provide this guarantee, but not the type.

That said it's much proper than playing with a void *data, beside the
fact kernel developers
will quickly understand what you do if you play with such scheme as
they are used to it.