linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Corrections to Documentation/rbtree.txt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47EA591F.9020507@mev.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:09:35 +0000
From:	Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Corrections to Documentation/rbtree.txt

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@....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@....co.uk>        )=-
-=( Tel: +44 (0)161 477 1898   FAX: +44 (0)161 718 3587         )=-
--
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/