Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 20 Jun 2021 10:27:54 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To:     =?utf-8?B?5ZGo5Lyg6auY?= <zhouchuangao@vivo.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] drivers/nvme/host: Use kobj_to_dev() API
Message-ID: <20210620172754.GB1137891@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com>
References: <20210618141817.GA18781@lst.de>
 <ABYAKQDNDmr9B7YYOVwFFKqU.3.1624078894067.Hmail.zhouchuangao@vivo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ABYAKQDNDmr9B7YYOVwFFKqU.3.1624078894067.Hmail.zhouchuangao@vivo.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 01:01:34PM +0800, 周传高 wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 07:10:58AM -0700, zhouchuangao wrote:
> >> Use kobj_to_dev() API instead of container_of().
> >
> >Why?  That just makes the code harder to read.
> 
> In my opinion, the kobj_to_dev() interface is provided by the kernel so that
> we can get device based on kobj without having to pass more parameters.
> I think it's easier to use.

This same patch has been proposed and rejected numerous times. Do we
need to place a comment in the code to prevent future requests?

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-March/023316.html
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2021-February/023060.html
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2020-September/019462.html