On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:02:00 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@linaro.org> wrote:
> You introduced a bug by changing the order.
>
> You have to undestand that to the original authors this stuff was really
> easy and they knew the order of the struct members because they chose it
> deliberately. In the end, they get so used to the code that
> "&record->trace" just becomes an idiom for casting "record" and they
> forget how it looks to a newcomer.
>
> I *personally* am not a fan of code which assumes we know the order of
> the struct members so I don't have a problem with you re-writing the
> code. But the commit message must say that it is just a cleanup and not
> a fix.
>
> Which reminds me that I had intended to create a container_of_first()
> for code like this which assumes that container_of() is just a cast.
> There is lots of code like this:
>
> struct something *member = container_of(p, struct foo, first_member);
>
> if (IS_ERR(member)) {
>
> Which relies on the face that "first_member" is the first member of
> foo struct. It's a quite common thing.
I agree that this is not a bug, but I will happily take a clean up to make
it more robust.
-- Steve
