| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:32:48 +0100 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add to_delayed_work macro Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. /Almost/ all. http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.28/drivers/firewire/fw-device.h#L73 > So I decided to follow the crowd. Any idea why it is so? Merely old habits. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--= --== ---== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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