[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277458232.3947.186.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:30:32 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 17:23 +0800, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2010/6/25 Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 15:48 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 10:12 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It is better to add "void *data" field in this struct to allow same
> >> > function can be used for multiple struct irq_work.
> >>
> >> No, simply do:
> >>
> >> struct my_foo {
> >> struct irq_work work;
> >> /* my extra data */
> >> }
> >>
> >> void my_func(struct irq_work *work)
> >> {
> >> struct my_foo *foo = container_of(work, struct my_foo, work);
> >>
> >> /* tada! */
> >> }
> >
> > Yes. This works too. But Adding "void *data" field is helpful if you do
> > not embed struct irq_work into another struct.
>
>
> That's what makes most sense. If you use work->data to put foo, then
> you can also do the opposite. Now the best is to pick the choice that
> gives you a real type and a typechecking, and not an error-prone and
> obfuscated void *
>
> This is the way things are made in the kernel. struct work_struct, struct list,
> struct rcu_head, etc... are all embedded into a container, so that we can
> use container_of.
container_of has no full type checking too.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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