From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf() Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:53:15 +0200 Message-ID: <77d68bcd-1ae4-4808-fc0b-6183ae5fb6c4@users.sourceforge.net> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net> <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net> <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Carpenter , Richard Weinberger Cc: "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 >>> 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. Is it interesting to see how different the software development opinions can be for such an implementation detail? > That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix patches Can any deviations from the Linux coding style become "bugs" also in your view of the software situation? > because these are a waste of time How do you value compliance with coding styles? > and regularly introduce bugs. Really? Would you like to discuss concrete incidents any further? Regards, Markus