[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:22:36 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add to_delayed_work macro
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:29:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:34:40 +0100 Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> wrote:
>
> > +#define to_delayed_work(_work) container_of(_work, struct delayed_work, work)
>
> As this is specifically designed to operate on a `struct work*', as
> opposed to "any struct which has a field called `work'", we can get
> additional type-safety by putting a C interface around it.
This is what I wanted to do in the first place, but then I noticed that
_all_ such wrappers around container_of are implemented as macros
rather than inline functions. So I decided to follow the crowd. Any
idea why it is so?
I will resend a new patch implementing to_delayed_work as an inline
function.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists