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

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Allen Pais <allen.cryptic@gmail.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net, manohar.vanga@gmail.com,
	airlied@linux.ie, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, sre@kernel.org,
	anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, maximlevitsky@gmail.com,
	richard@nod.at, deller@gmx.de, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, 3chas3@gmail.com,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	mporter@kernel.crashing.org, jdike@addtoit.com,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	oakad@yahoo.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
	linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
	openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, mitch@sfgoth.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	martyn@welchs.me.uk, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Allen <allen.lkml@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alex.bou9@gmail.com,
	stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	linux-ntb@googlegroups.com,
	Romain Perier <romain.perier@gmail.com>,
	shawnguo@kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: convert tasklets to use new tasklet_setup() API
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:55:28 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200826095528.GX1793@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEogwTCH8qqjAnSpT0GDn+NuAps8dNbfcPVQ9h8kfOWNbzrD0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:21:35AM +0530, Allen Pais wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:09 AM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 21:54 +0530, Allen wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Um, I thought it was exactly descriptive: you're casting to the
> > > > outer container.  I thought about following the C++ dynamic casting
> > > > style, so out_cast(), but that seemed a bit pejorative.  What about
> > > > outer_cast()?
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not opposed to container_from() but it seems a little less
> > > > descriptive than outer_cast() but I don't really care.  I always
> > > > have to look up container_of() when I'm using it so this would just
> > > > be another macro of that type ...
> > > >
> > >
> > >  So far we have a few which have been suggested as replacement
> > > for from_tasklet()
> > >
> > > - out_cast() or outer_cast()
> > > - from_member().
> > > - container_from() or from_container()
> > >
> > > from_container() sounds fine, would trimming it a bit work? like
> > > from_cont().
> >
> > I'm fine with container_from().  It's the same form as container_of()
> > and I think we need urgent agreement to not stall everything else so
> > the most innocuous name is likely to get the widest acceptance.
> 
> Kees,
> 
>   Will you be  sending the newly proposed API to Linus? I have V2
> which uses container_from()
> ready to be sent out.

I liked that James swapped the first two arguments so that it matches
container_of().  Plus it's nice that when you have:

	struct whatever *foo = container_from(ptr, foo, member);

Then it means that "ptr == &foo->member".

regards,
dan carpenter