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 19:21:35 +0200
From:   Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@...il.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     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, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros


On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٤٢, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:25:29PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote:
>> On ٢١‏/٣‏/٢٠٢٣ ١٧:٤٧, 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/;
>> Okay, I will fix it.
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	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.
>>
>> please check this with Julia, because she said they should different.
> At least use "_dev" instead of "d" which seems to be a common idiom,
> too:
>
> 	$ git grep -P 'container_of\(_(?<ident>[A-Za-z_0-9-]*)\s*,[^,]*,\s*\g{ident}\s*\)' | wc -l
> 	570
>
> ("drv" should be fine, because the third argument is "driver" there.)

Okay, I will do that.

Thanks,

Menna

>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>