Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2023 17:26:29 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros |
| |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 04:59:49PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > 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.
Hmm, that seems to be subjective, but I have less problems with that than with using "d" for a struct device (or a struct device_driver). I'd even go so far as to consider it nice if they are identical.
Maybe that's because having the first and third argument identical is quite common:
$ git grep -P 'container_of\((?<ident>[A-Za-z_0-9-]*)\s*,[^,]*,\s*\g{ident}\s*\)' | wc -l 5940
which is >44% of all the usages
$ git grep -P 'container_of\((?<ident>[A-Za-z_0-9-]*)\s*,[^,]*,\s*(?&ident)\s*\)' | wc -l 13362
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |