sizeof

sizeof

[Tobin C. Harding]

Question relating to the validity/usefulness of patching calls to sizeof.

>From Documentation/process/coding-style.rst

The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:

.. code-block:: c

	p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...);

The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and
introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed
but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not.Is the distinction between 


 Question:

Is a the following a valid/useful patch or just code churn

diff--

- sizeof(struct foo)
+ sizeof(*fp)

---

sizeof

[Anuz Pratap Singh Tomar]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc> wrote:

> Question relating to the validity/usefulness of patching calls to sizeof.
>
> >From Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>
> The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
>
> .. code-block:: c
>
>         p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...);
>
> The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and
> introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is
> changed
> but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is
> not.Is the distinction between
>
>
>  Question:
>
> Is a the following a valid/useful patch or just code churn
>
> diff--
>
> - sizeof(struct foo)
> + sizeof(*fp)
>
>
That should depend on consistency of convention in whole file. If there are
multiple instance of this in same file(or whole module), it might not make
sense to change them all.


> ---
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>



-- 
Thank you
Warm Regards
Anuz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20170308/74475c41/attachment-0001.html