From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:10613 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763301AbdJRKBN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:01:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:00:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com cc: joe@perches.com, elfring@users.sourceforge.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.comg, 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 In-Reply-To: <026d582729b849b780fbaa06fb8bc79e@infineon.com> Message-ID: References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171016183139.otyh3m5c5yurtmow@linux.intel.com> <20171016183512.3bz6x4b6lbhpbkje@linux.intel.com> <20171017085124.pkrjzghcf5wmcydc@mwanda> <1508255833.3129.33.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1508280210.6530.32.camel@perches.com> <1508318326.6806.1.camel@perches.com> <026d582729b849b780fbaa06fb8bc79e@infineon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:00 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > The printk removals do change the objects. > > > > > > > > The value of that type of change is only for resource limited systems. > > > > > > I imagine that such small code adjustments are also useful for other > > systems. > > > > Your imagination and mine differ. > > Where do you _think_ it matters? > > > > 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. The type argument to sizeof could have the wrong type. The expression argument to sizeof could be missing the *. Unpleasant consequences are possible in both cases. Probably each maintainer has a style they prefer. Perhaps it could be useful to adjust the code to follow the dominant strategy, in cases where there are a inconsistencies. For example if (...) x = foo1(sizeof(struct xtype)); else x = foo2(sizeof(*x)); might at least cause some unnecessary mental effort to process. julia