Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2023 19:21:35 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: greybus: use inline function for macros | From | Menna Mahmoud <> |
| |
On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٨:٤٢, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:25:29PM +0200, Menna Mahmoud wrote: >> On ٢١/٣/٢٠٢٣ ١٧:٤٧, 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/; >> Okay, I will fix it. >>>> 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. >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + return container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev); >>>> +} >>>> [...] >>>> }; >>>> -#define to_gbphy_driver(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver, driver) >>>> +static inline struct gbphy_driver *to_gbphy_driver(struct device_driver *d) >>>> +{ >>>> + return container_of(d, struct gbphy_driver, driver); >>>> +} >>> With a similar reasoning (and also to not have "d"s that are either >>> device or device_driver) I'd recommend "drv" here. >> >> please check this with Julia, because she said they should different. > At least use "_dev" instead of "d" which seems to be a common idiom, > too: > > $ git grep -P 'container_of\(_(?<ident>[A-Za-z_0-9-]*)\s*,[^,]*,\s*\g{ident}\s*\)' | wc -l > 570 > > ("drv" should be fine, because the third argument is "driver" there.)
Okay, I will do that.
Thanks,
Menna
> > Best regards > Uwe >
| |