From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf()
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:06:30 -0400
Message-ID: <wrfjzimcbbft.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>
        <77d68bcd-1ae4-4808-fc0b-6183ae5fb6c4@users.sourceforge.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <77d68bcd-1ae4-4808-fc0b-6183ae5fb6c4@users.sourceforge.net> (SF
        Markus Elfring's message of "Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:53:15 +0200")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>, "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

SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>>>> 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?

The Linux Coding Style is not a law, nor is it at all perfect. You
clearly misunderstood how Linux development work and you are doing a
great job wasting everyone's time with this patchset.

Jes