From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp11.infineon.com ([217.10.52.105]:2642 "EHLO
        smtp11.infineon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751922AbdJRLHh (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:07:37 -0400
From: <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>
To: <joe@perches.com>, <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
CC: <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>, <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        <jsnitsel@redhat.com>, <kgold@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <paulus@samba.org>, <PeterHuewe@gmx.de>,
        <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: char-TPM: Adjustments for ten function implementations
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:07:35 +0000
Message-ID: <65f6b172844a47c9b0b5ca1bb7ce2ad8@infineon.com>
References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net>
         <20171016183139.otyh3m5c5yurtmow@linux.intel.com>
         <20171016183512.3bz6x4b6lbhpbkje@linux.intel.com>
         <20171017085124.pkrjzghcf5wmcydc@mwanda>
         <f9b35a67-bd7f-b140-bdc1-cb4886a6b1ea@users.sourceforge.net>
         <1508255833.3129.33.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <1508280210.6530.32.camel@perches.com>
         <bf7fc26c-bdc9-c752-72c7-f44c22f4a328@users.sourceforge.net>
         <1508318326.6806.1.camel@perches.com>
         <026d582729b849b780fbaa06fb8bc79e@infineon.com>
         <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710181154390.3524@hadrien>
         <b2772ac342ca4cb19149dd2c91f26087@infineon.com>
 <1508323753.6806.5.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <1508323753.6806.5.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-integrity.vger.kernel.org>

> On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 10:44 +0000, Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com wrote:
> > > For instance, nothing about
> > > > > 	sizeof(type)
> > > > > vs
> > > > > 	sizeof(*ptr)
> > > > > makes it easier for a human to read the code.
> > > >
> > > > If it does not make it easier to read the code for you, then maybe you
> > > > should consider that this might not be true for all humans. For me, it
> > > > makes it much easier to see at a glance, that code like
> > > > ptr=malloc(sizeof(*ptr)) is correct.
> > >
> > > I don't think there is a perfect solution.
> >
> > Maybe. But for the second variant the correctness is easier to check,
> 
> How often should
> 	ptr = alloc(sizeof(*ptr))
> be
> 	ptr = alloc(sizeof(**ptr))

Never? Because in that case it probably should be *ptr=alloc(sizeof(**ptr)), unless you are doing something horrible ;-)

Alexander