linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros

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: <649afe06-e069-e046-21ec-0d86243a4bfa@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:00:46 +0200
From:   Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros


On ١٩‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ٢٣:٢٦, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>
>> On ١٩/٣/٢٠٢٣ ٢٢:٥٥, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>>
>>>> On ١٩/٣/٢٠٢٣ ٢٢:٢١, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Convert `to_gbphy_dev` and `to_gbphy_driver` macros into a
>>>>>> static inline functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is not great to have macro that use `container_of` macro,
>>>>>> because from looking at the definition one cannot tell what type
>>>>>> it applies to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can get the same benefit from an efficiency point of view
>>>>>> by making an inline function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h | 10 ++++++++--
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>>>> b/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>>>> index 1de510499480..42c4e3fe307c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.h
>>>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ struct gbphy_device {
>>>>>>     	struct device dev;
>>>>>>     };
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have made the patch against your previous patch that added a newline
>>>>> here.  It should be against Greg's tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> julia
>>>> you mean I should remove this newline, right?
>>> You should apply your change to the state of Greg's tree, not the state
>>> after your patch.
>>>
>>> Assuming that you have committed both the patch adding the new line and
>>> the patch changing the macro to a function, and have made no other
>>> changes, you can do git rebase -i HEAD~2 and the put a d at the beginning
>>> of the line related to the patch adding the newline.
>>
>> you mean drop this patch "staging: greybus: remove unnecessary blank line"?
> No, the one that removes the blank line looks fine.
>
> At some point, you added a blank line below the two structure definitions.
> That blank line is not in Greg's tree, so you shoulsn't send a patch that
> assumes that it is there.


I'm sorry I mean this patch "staging: greybus: add blank line after 
struct", Julia I understood the issue

but I am confused about how to fix it, should I drop the patch that 
added the newline? then what should I do?

and version that I have submitted, should I do anything about it as you 
said it is wrong solution?


Menna

> julia
>
>> Menna
>>
>>
>>> If you have made
>>> more changes, you can adapt the HEAD~ part accordingly.
>>>
>>> julia
>>>
>>>
>>>> Menna
>>>>
>>>>>> -#define to_gbphy_dev(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev)
>>>>>> +static inline struct gbphy_device *to_gbphy_dev(const struct device
>>>>>> *d)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	return container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     static inline void *gb_gbphy_get_data(struct gbphy_device *gdev)
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>> @@ -45,7 +48,10 @@ struct gbphy_driver {
>>>>>>     	struct device_driver driver;
>>>>>>     };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -#define to_gbphy_driver(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver,
>>>>>> driver)
>>>>>> +static inline struct gbphy_driver *to_gbphy_driver(struct
>>>>>> device_driver
>>>>>> *d)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	return container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver, driver);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     int gb_gbphy_register_driver(struct gbphy_driver *driver,
>>>>>>     			     struct module *owner, const char
>>>>>> *mod_name);
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> >