From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:09:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20190611140907.899bebb12a3d731da24a9ad1@linux-foundation.org> References: <20190611193836.2772-1-shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> <20190611134831.a60c11f4b691d14d04a87e29@linux-foundation.org> <6DCAE4F8-3BEC-45F2-A733-F4D15850B7F3@dilger.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6DCAE4F8-3BEC-45F2-A733-F4D15850B7F3@dilger.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Cc: Shyam Saini , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4 , devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mayhs11saini@gmail.com, Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > >> to FIELD_SIZEOF > > > > As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - > > they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to > > a new member_sizeof(). > > > > What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. Erk. Sorry, I should have grepped. > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD(). I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally defined. Why is that?