From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com, joe@perches.com,
adobriyan@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 13:53:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201910021349.9B19DCFD6@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191002.132121.402975401040540710.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:21:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700
>
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:56:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> > (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro
> >> > that nobody really had issues with?
> >>
> >> That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more accurate "member"
> >> instead of "field" since a treewide change was happening anyway:
> >> https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/07/02/2
> >>
> >> At the end of the day, I really don't care -- I just want to have _one_
> >> macro. :)
> >>
> >> > (b) I see no sign of the networking people having been asked about
> >> > their preferences.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that's entirely true. Totally my mistake; it seemed like a trivial
> >> enough change that I didn't want to bother too many people. But let's
> >> fix that now... Dave, do you have any concerns about this change of
> >> FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member() (or if it prevails, sizeof_field())?
> >
> > David, can you weight in on this? Are you okay with a mass renaming of
> > FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member(), as the largest user of the old macro
> > is in networking?
>
> I have no objection to moving to sizeof_member().
Great; thank you!
Linus, are you still open to taking this series with Dave's buy-in? I'd
really hate to break it up since it's such a mechanical treewide
change. I'm also happy to wait until the next -rc1 window; whatever you
think is best here.
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-02 20:53 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 [this message]
2019-09-27 6:57 ` [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1 Alexey Dobriyan
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=201910021349.9B19DCFD6@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@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.