From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/54] md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf() Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:53:45 +0300 Message-ID: <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net> <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Weinberger Cc: SF Markus Elfring , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , Guoqing Jiang , Jens Axboe , Mike Christie , Neil Brown , Shaohua Li , Tomasz Majchrzak , LKML , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" , Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:29:20AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, SF Markus Elfring > wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:46:18 +0200 > > > > Replace the specification of a data structure by a pointer dereference > > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding size > > determination a bit safer. > > Isn't this pure matter of taste? > Some developers prefer sizeof(*ptr) because it is easier to type, other > developers prefer sizeof(struct foo) because you can determine the type > at first sight and makes review more easy. sizeof(*ptr) is more future proof and normally more obvious and easier to review. That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix patches because these are a waste of time and regularly introduce bugs. regards, dan carpenter