[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49FB3D9B.3050704@grandegger.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 20:21:15 +0200
From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@...kswagen.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] can: Driver for the SJA1000 CAN controller
I'm now back fixing the open issues of this patch series...
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[snip]
>> +/*
>> + * SJA1000 private data structure
>> + */
>> +struct sja1000_priv {
>> + struct can_priv can; /* must be the first member! */
>
> AHA! I knew it!
>
> This kind of pointer trickery is fragile and dangerous, please don't do
> it. Much better would be something like:
>
> dev->priv = &dev_specific_priv->can;
>
> Then the higher layers know they have a proper struct can_priv pointer.
> Then you can use container_of() at this level to get the outer structure
> pointer. Much more robust and in line with normal kernel coding idiom.
Unfortunately, the "struct net_device" does not have a "priv" field. Using
struct can_priv *can = netdev_priv(dev);
struct sja1000_priv *sja1000 = candev_priv(dev);
instead is awkward. That's what we had at first. Any other more elegant
solution in mind?
Wolfgang.
--
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