Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:00:46 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros | From | Menna Mahmoud <> |
| |
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@inria.fr> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Menna Mahmoud <eng.mennamahmoud.mm@gmail.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 >>>>>> >>>>>> > >
| |