| Message ID | 20200831103542.305571-34-allen.lkml@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dmaengine: convert tasklets to use new | expand |
On 2020-08-31 4:35 a.m., Allen Pais wrote: > In preparation for unconditionally passing the > struct tasklet_struct pointer to all tasklet > callbacks, switch to using the new tasklet_setup() > and from_tasklet() to pass the tasklet pointer explicitly. > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/dma/plx_dma.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c > index db4c5fd453a9..f387c5bbc170 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c > @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ static void plx_dma_stop(struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev) > rcu_read_unlock(); > } > > -static void plx_dma_desc_task(unsigned long data) > +static void plx_dma_desc_task(struct tasklet_struct *t) > { > - struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = (void *)data; > + struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = from_tasklet(plxdev, t, desc_task); The discussion I saw on another thread suggested the private macro from_tasklet() would be replaced with something generic. So isn't this patchset a bit premature? Thanks, Logan
Logan, > > In preparation for unconditionally passing the > > struct tasklet_struct pointer to all tasklet > > callbacks, switch to using the new tasklet_setup() > > and from_tasklet() to pass the tasklet pointer explicitly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/dma/plx_dma.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c > > index db4c5fd453a9..f387c5bbc170 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c > > @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ static void plx_dma_stop(struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev) > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > > > -static void plx_dma_desc_task(unsigned long data) > > +static void plx_dma_desc_task(struct tasklet_struct *t) > > { > > - struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = (void *)data; > > + struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = from_tasklet(plxdev, t, desc_task); > > The discussion I saw on another thread suggested the private macro > from_tasklet() would be replaced with something generic. So isn't this > patchset a bit premature? Yes, but efforts to replace it with something generic was not well accepted. We were left with either using a private macro from_tasklet() or use well known container_of(). I have left it to the maintainers to decide which one they prefer.
On 2020-08-31 9:56 a.m., Allen wrote: > Logan, >>> In preparation for unconditionally passing the >>> struct tasklet_struct pointer to all tasklet >>> callbacks, switch to using the new tasklet_setup() >>> and from_tasklet() to pass the tasklet pointer explicitly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/dma/plx_dma.c | 7 +++---- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c >>> index db4c5fd453a9..f387c5bbc170 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c >>> +++ b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c >>> @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ static void plx_dma_stop(struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev) >>> rcu_read_unlock(); >>> } >>> >>> -static void plx_dma_desc_task(unsigned long data) >>> +static void plx_dma_desc_task(struct tasklet_struct *t) >>> { >>> - struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = (void *)data; >>> + struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = from_tasklet(plxdev, t, desc_task); >> >> The discussion I saw on another thread suggested the private macro >> from_tasklet() would be replaced with something generic. So isn't this >> patchset a bit premature? > > Yes, but efforts to replace it with something generic was not well accepted. > We were left with either using a private macro from_tasklet() or use > well known container_of(). I have left it to the maintainers to decide > which one they prefer. Well my vote would be for using container_of() directly. But I don't really have much clout here. Logan
diff --git a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c index db4c5fd453a9..f387c5bbc170 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c +++ b/drivers/dma/plx_dma.c @@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ static void plx_dma_stop(struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev) rcu_read_unlock(); } -static void plx_dma_desc_task(unsigned long data) +static void plx_dma_desc_task(struct tasklet_struct *t) { - struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = (void *)data; + struct plx_dma_dev *plxdev = from_tasklet(plxdev, t, desc_task); plx_dma_process_desc(plxdev); } @@ -513,8 +513,7 @@ static int plx_dma_create(struct pci_dev *pdev) } spin_lock_init(&plxdev->ring_lock); - tasklet_init(&plxdev->desc_task, plx_dma_desc_task, - (unsigned long)plxdev); + tasklet_setup(&plxdev->desc_task, plx_dma_desc_task); RCU_INIT_POINTER(plxdev->pdev, pdev); plxdev->bar = pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[0];
In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct tasklet_struct pointer to all tasklet callbacks, switch to using the new tasklet_setup() and from_tasklet() to pass the tasklet pointer explicitly. Signed-off-by: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@gmail.com> --- drivers/dma/plx_dma.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)