Re: [PATCH] block: convert tasklets to use new tasklet_setup() API

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 07:17:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/19/20 6:11 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 07:00:53AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 8/18/20 1:00 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 13:02 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>> On 8/17/20 12:48 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:44:34PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/17/20 12:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 06:56:47AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/17/20 2:15 AM, Allen Pais wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> From: Allen Pais <allen.lkml@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Who came up with the idea to add a macro 'from_tasklet' that
> >>>>>>>> is just container_of? container_of in the code would be
> >>>>>>>> _much_ more readable, and not leave anyone guessing wtf
> >>>>>>>> from_tasklet is doing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'd fix that up now before everything else goes in...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I mentioned in the other thread, I think this makes things
> >>>>>>> much more readable. It's the same thing that the timer_struct
> >>>>>>> conversion did (added a container_of wrapper) to avoid the
> >>>>>>> ever-repeating use of typeof(), long lines, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But then it should use a generic name, instead of each sub-system 
> >>>>>> using some random name that makes people look up exactly what it
> >>>>>> does. I'm not huge fan of the container_of() redundancy, but
> >>>>>> adding private variants of this doesn't seem like the best way
> >>>>>> forward. Let's have a generic helper that does this, and use it
> >>>>>> everywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm open to suggestions, but as things stand, these kinds of
> >>>>> treewide
> >>>>
> >>>> On naming? Implementation is just as it stands, from_tasklet() is
> >>>> totally generic which is why I objected to it. from_member()? Not
> >>>> great with naming... But I can see this going further and then we'll
> >>>> suddenly have tons of these. It's not good for readability.
> >>>
> >>> Since both threads seem to have petered out, let me suggest in
> >>> kernel.h:
> >>>
> >>> #define cast_out(ptr, container, member) \
> >>> 	container_of(ptr, typeof(*container), member)
> >>>
> >>> It does what you want, the argument order is the same as container_of
> >>> with the only difference being you name the containing structure
> >>> instead of having to specify its type.
> >>
> >> Not to incessantly bike shed on the naming, but I don't like cast_out,
> >> it's not very descriptive. And it has connotations of getting rid of
> >> something, which isn't really true.
> > 
> > I agree, if we want to bike shed, I don't like this color either.
> > 
> >> FWIW, I like the from_ part of the original naming, as it has some clues
> >> as to what is being done here. Why not just from_container()? That
> >> should immediately tell people what it does without having to look up
> >> the implementation, even before this becomes a part of the accepted
> >> coding norm.
> > 
> > Why are people hating on the well-known and used container_of()?
> > 
> > If you really hate to type the type and want a new macro, what about
> > 'container_from()'?  (noun/verb is nicer to sort symbols by...)
> > 
> > But really, why is this even needed?
> 
> container_from() or from_container(), either works just fine for me
> in terms of naming.
> 
> I think people are hating on it because it makes for _really_ long
> lines, and it's arguably cleaner/simpler to just pass in the pointer
> type instead. Then you end up with lines like this:
> 
> 	struct request_queue *q =                                               
> 		container_of(work, struct request_queue, requeue_work.work);  
> 
> But I'm not the one that started this addition of from_tasklet(), my
> objection was adding a private macro for something that should be
> generic functionality.

Agreed.

> Hence I think we either need to provide that, or
> tell the from_tasklet() folks that they should just use container_of().

Also agreed, thanks.

greg k-h