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]
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:17:20 +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 ٢٠‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ٠٠:٠٦, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>
>> 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?
> If the git rebase solution is not clear to you, then another simple
> solution is just to clone Greg's tree again somewhere else, and make your
> changes.
>
>> and version that I have submitted, should I do anything about it as you said
>> it is wrong solution?
> My concern was the blank line after each of the structure definitions,
> which is not in Greg's tree, so he can't apply the patch.  Other than
> that, if the code compiles it is at least going in the right direction.
>
> Please fix the newlines issue, and then send the patch again.
>
> julia


Okay I will fix it, but will send it as a new patch not v3, right?


Menna

>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists