linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] 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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:59:49 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
cc:     Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        johan@...nel.org, elder@...nel.org, vireshk@...nel.org,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros



On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hello,
>
> just some nitpicks:
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 01:04:33AM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
> > Convert `to_gbphy_dev` and `to_gbphy_driver` macros into a
> > static inline function.
> >
> > it is not great to have macro that use `container_of` macro,
>
> s/it/It/; s/macro/macros/; s/use/use the/;
>
> > because from looking at the definition one cannot tell what type
> > it applies to.
> > [...]
> > -#define to_gbphy_dev(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev)
> > +static inline struct gbphy_device *to_gbphy_dev(const struct device *d)
>
> drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c always passes a variable named
> "dev" to this macro. So I'd call the parameter "dev", too, instead of
> "d". This is also a more typical name for variables of that type.

I argued against that.  Because then there are two uses of dev
in the argument of container_of, and they refer to completely different
things.  It's true that by the way container_of works, it's fine, but it
may be misleading.

julia

>
> > +{
> > +	return container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev);
> > +}
> > [...]
> >  };
> > -#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);
> > +}
>
> With a similar reasoning (and also to not have "d"s that are either
> device or device_driver) I'd recommend "drv" here.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
>