From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:57:00 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190927065700.GA2215@avx2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg8+eNK+SK1Ekqm0qNQHVM6e6YOdZx3yhsX6Ajo3gEupg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull this mostly mechanical treewide conversion to the single and
> > more accurately named sizeof_member() macro for the end of v5.4-rc1. This
> > replaces 3 macros of the same behavior (FIELD_SIZEOF(), SIZEOF_FIELD(),
> > and sizeof_field()). The last patch in the series has a script in the
> > commit log to do the conversion, if you want to compare the results
> > (they remained identical today when I checked).
>
> Honestly, I'm not sure why "sizeof_field()" wasn't just picked when we
> already had it. Making a new macro for the exact same thing seems
> somewhat questionable.
>
> Yes, yes, the C standard calls them "members". Except when it doesn't,
> and they are members of a bit type, and it calls them bit-fields.
It does, but neither typeof nor sizeof work on bitfields.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-27 6:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-26 17:33 [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1 Kees Cook
2019-09-26 20:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-26 20:56 ` Kees Cook
2019-10-02 18:19 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member (was Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1) Kees Cook
2019-10-02 20:21 ` renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member David Miller
2019-10-02 20:53 ` Kees Cook
2019-09-27 6:57 ` Alexey Dobriyan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190927065700.GA2215@avx2 \
--to=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.