From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, jeremy.kerr@canonical.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] of/device: populate platform_device (of_device) resource table on allocation
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:14:36 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1276218876.1962.80.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100610.100140.8559628065321695.imp@bsdimp.com>
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:01 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : Oh, come on. Both constructions are binary equivalent.
> :
> : So how can people seriously be with *that* code:
> :
> : dev->resource = (void *)&dev[1];
> :
> : which, semantically, is a nonsense and asks for a fix.
>
> It isn't nonsense. That's just your opinion of it, nothing more.
No, it's dangerously fragile abuse of the C language which loses type
safety etc... It might be correct, but if somebody comes back in 2 year
to change something in that code, the chances of breaking it are higher
than having the type safe:
> : dev_obj->dev.resource = dev_obj->resource;
> :
Variant.
It's also less ugly.
> : simply makes sense.
>
> But this requires extra, bogus fields in the structure and creates a
> bogus sizeof issue.
>
> There are problems both ways. Yelling about it isn't going to make
> you any more right, or convince me that I'm wrong. It is an argument
> that is at least two decades old...
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-11 1:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-08 14:26 [PATCH 0/6] OF device code merges and improvements Grant Likely
2010-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH 1/6] of: Use full node name in resource structures Grant Likely
2010-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH 2/6] of/device: merge of_device_uevent Grant Likely
2010-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH 3/6] of: Modify of_device_get_modalias to be passed struct device Grant Likely
2010-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH 4/6] of/device: Merge of_platform_bus_probe() Grant Likely
2010-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH 5/6] of: Merge of_device_alloc Grant Likely
2010-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH 6/6] of/device: populate platform_device (of_device) resource table on allocation Grant Likely
2010-06-08 15:57 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-06-08 16:02 ` Grant Likely
2010-06-08 16:46 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-06-08 18:41 ` Grant Likely
2010-06-08 19:48 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-06-10 6:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-10 14:18 ` Grant Likely
2010-06-10 15:13 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-06-10 15:47 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-06-10 16:01 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-06-10 16:52 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-06-10 17:09 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-06-10 17:20 ` Grant Likely
2010-06-10 17:09 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-06-11 1:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2010-06-10 16:30 ` Grant Likely
2010-06-10 17:10 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-06-10 17:21 ` Grant Likely
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=1276218876.1962.80.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=imp@bsdimp.com \
--cc=jeremy.kerr@canonical.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).