Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:22:36 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add to_delayed_work macro
Message-ID: <20090303102236.1ad909ad@hyperion.delvare>
In-Reply-To: <20090303002952.80f1afc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20090303083440.57df68c3@hyperion.delvare>
	<20090303002952.80f1afc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1003
Lines: 26

Hi Andrew,

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:29:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:34:40 +0100 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
> 
> > +#define to_delayed_work(_work)	container_of(_work, struct delayed_work, work)
> 
> As this is specifically designed to operate on a `struct work*', as
> opposed to "any struct which has a field called `work'", we can get
> additional type-safety by putting a C interface around it.

This is what I wanted to do in the first place, but then I noticed that
_all_ such wrappers around container_of are implemented as macros
rather than inline functions. So I decided to follow the crowd. Any
idea why it is so?

I will resend a new patch implementing to_delayed_work as an inline
function.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/