From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/54] md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf()
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:09:19 -0400
Message-ID: <wrfjvax0bbb4.fsf@redhat.com>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
        <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net>
        <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net>
        <CAFLxGvx0Fr-WNvKYACdvNiZwYzHW4ocna9HPH8J_WPSXWc+ngg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Fri,
        7 Oct 2016 10:53:45 +0300")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>, "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@suse.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>, Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes:
> 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
>> <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>> > 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.

This is totally a matter of taste. I for one find it way easier to
review something which says 'sizeof(struct ....)' because it stands out
more. I am curious what you mean by it being more future proof - if the
code says 'struct foo' in the sizeof argument, what is the problem?

The one area where there is a higher risk is if the type is changed, but
that is outweighed by the fact the spelled out version is easier to
review.

Jes