Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1763617AbcLTRvY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:51:24 -0500
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:45059 "EHLO
        aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1762950AbcLTRvU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:51:20 -0500
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:51:13 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/blkback: use rb_entry()
Message-ID: <20161220175113.GB16671@char.us.oracle.com>
References: <ddabc96c798df194791134d8e070d728e2a7b59f.1482203698.git.geliangtang@gmail.com>
 <ce9bc88496a04e6495320b041a0de4e0155b76a9.1482205355.git.geliangtang@gmail.com>
 <20161220164703.GL10069@char.us.oracle.com>
 <20161220174406.uewt5mhniwtznran@dhcp-3-221.uk.xensource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161220174406.uewt5mhniwtznran@dhcp-3-221.uk.xensource.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 761
Lines: 24

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:44:06PM +0000, Roger Pau Monn? wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:47:03AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:02:19PM +0800, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > > To make the code clearer, use rb_entry() instead of container_of() to
> > > deal with rbtree.
> > 
> > That is OK but I think 'container_of' is more clear.
> > 
> > Roger, thoughts?
> 
> I think so, container_of is a global macro that's widely used and everyone
> knows, rb_entry OTOH it's not and it's use doesn't really simply the code at
> all. I'm not really opposed, but it seems kind of a pointless change (not that
> it's wrong).

<nods> I concur.

Geliang Tang,

Thank you for the patch but there is no need for it.

Thanks again!
> 
> Roger.