Re: [PATCH v13 02/12] livepatch: Helper macros to define livepatch structures

[Petr Mladek]

On Thu 2018-10-18 07:58:24, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 01:11:53PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2018-10-17 13:17:56, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:37:03PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > The definition of struct klp_func might be a bit confusing.
> > > > The original function is defined by name as a string.
> > > > The new function is defined by name as a function pointer
> > > > casted to unsigned long.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch adds helper macros that hide the different types.
> > > > The functions are defined just by the name. For example:
> > > 
> > > On one hand, these macros are kind of nice, because they do the function
> > > pointer casting for the user.
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, they hide the field names, which hurts readability a
> > > bit.  For example, it would be easy to accidentally assign the wrong
> > > callback function.
> > 
> > I am not a big fan of the macros either.
> > 
> > 
> > > Also, it's unfortunate that these macros are needed in the first place.
> > > 
> > > What if we just change new_addr (and old_addr) to be 'void *'?  Then the
> > > macros wouldn't be as useful, and we could just get rid of them.
> > 
> > Hmm, I wonder if any change make sense then. The above proposal might
> > just exchange one confusion with another one:
> > 
> >    + I would expect that a variable called addr is of the type
> >      unsigned long
> > 
> >    + we would need casting when calling ftrace API
> > 
> >    + .new_addr = function_xxx looks a bit weird and it will
> >      be used many times in all livepatch sources.
> 
> Fair points.  Instead of changing new_func to new_addr, how about we
> leave it alone, and instead change 'unsigned long old_addr' to 'void
> *old_func'?
> 
> That would give us consistent naming internally, while making the
> external interface more sensible and cast-free.
> 
> We'd still have to cast when passing to the ftrace API, but IMO it would
> be worth it.

I am fine with this. I will do this in v14 unless anyone complains ;-)

Best Regards,
Petr