linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH] drivers/nvme/host: Use kobj_to

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

Message-ID: <20210620172754.GB1137891@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Jun 2021 10:27:54 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To:     周传高 <zhouchuangao@...o.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] drivers/nvme/host: Use kobj_to_dev() API

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 01:01:34PM +0800, 周传高 wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 07:10:58AM -0700, zhouchuangao wrote:
> >> Use kobj_to_dev() API instead of container_of().
> >
> >Why?  That just makes the code harder to read.
> 
> In my opinion, the kobj_to_dev() interface is provided by the kernel so that
> we can get device based on kobj without having to pass more parameters.
> I think it's easier to use.

This same patch has been proposed and rejected numerous times. Do we
need to place a comment in the code to prevent future requests?

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-March/023316.html
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-February/023060.html
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2020-September/019462.html