| Message ID | 1427988653-754-93-git-send-email-l.stach@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:30:34PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > This provides a bit more type safety. > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> > --- > drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h > index cfade337d4db..fadd5198b3e8 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h > @@ -75,7 +75,12 @@ struct etnaviv_gem_object { > > struct etnaviv_gem_userptr userptr; > }; > -#define to_etnaviv_bo(x) container_of(x, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base) > + > +static inline > +struct etnaviv_gem_object *to_etnaviv_bo(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > +{ > + return container_of(obj, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base); > +} I've always wondered about patches like this, and wondered how they're supposed to be more type safe. The only thing which I can see is that the inline function will warn if you pass it a const or volatile pointer, whereas container_of() will only warn if it's passed a volatile pointer. Apart from that, I don't see any difference between the two.
2015-04-02 18:29 GMT+02:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:30:34PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: >> This provides a bit more type safety. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> >> --- >> drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h | 7 ++++++- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h >> index cfade337d4db..fadd5198b3e8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h >> +++ b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h >> @@ -75,7 +75,12 @@ struct etnaviv_gem_object { >> >> struct etnaviv_gem_userptr userptr; >> }; >> -#define to_etnaviv_bo(x) container_of(x, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base) >> + >> +static inline >> +struct etnaviv_gem_object *to_etnaviv_bo(struct drm_gem_object *obj) >> +{ >> + return container_of(obj, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base); >> +} > > I've always wondered about patches like this, and wondered how they're > supposed to be more type safe. > > The only thing which I can see is that the inline function will warn if > you pass it a const or volatile pointer, whereas container_of() will > only warn if it's passed a volatile pointer. Apart from that, I don't > see any difference between the two. Eclipse CDT is happier with functions then macros in some case. I have no opinion about this patch. -- Christian Gmeiner, MSc https://soundcloud.com/christian-gmeiner
diff --git a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h index cfade337d4db..fadd5198b3e8 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h +++ b/drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h @@ -75,7 +75,12 @@ struct etnaviv_gem_object { struct etnaviv_gem_userptr userptr; }; -#define to_etnaviv_bo(x) container_of(x, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base) + +static inline +struct etnaviv_gem_object *to_etnaviv_bo(struct drm_gem_object *obj) +{ + return container_of(obj, struct etnaviv_gem_object, base); +} struct etnaviv_gem_ops { int (*get_pages)(struct etnaviv_gem_object *);
This provides a bit more type safety. Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/staging/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.h | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)