From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alexander.steffen@infineon.com>
Received: from smtp11.infineon.com (smtp11.infineon.com
 [IPv6:2a00:18f0:1e00:4::5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yH8RJ1NQ7zDrLC
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:07:39 +1100 (AEDT)
From: <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>
To: <joe@perches.com>, <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
CC: <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
 <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
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:07:35 +0000
Message-ID: <65f6b172844a47c9b0b5ca1bb7ce2ad8@infineon.com>
References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20171016183139.otyh3m5c5yurtmow@linux.intel.com>
 <20171016183512.3bz6x4b6lbhpbkje@linux.intel.com>
 <20171017085124.pkrjzghcf5wmcydc@mwanda>
 <f9b35a67-bd7f-b140-bdc1-cb4886a6b1ea@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1508255833.3129.33.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1508280210.6530.32.camel@perches.com>
 <bf7fc26c-bdc9-c752-72c7-f44c22f4a328@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1508318326.6806.1.camel@perches.com>
 <026d582729b849b780fbaa06fb8bc79e@infineon.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710181154390.3524@hadrien>
 <b2772ac342ca4cb19149dd2c91f26087@infineon.com>
 <1508323753.6806.5.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <1508323753.6806.5.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

> On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 10:44 +0000, Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com wrote:
> > > 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=3Dmalloc(sizeof(*ptr)) is correct.
> > >
> > > I don't think there is a perfect solution.
> >
> > Maybe. But for the second variant the correctness is easier to check,
>=20
> How often should
> 	ptr =3D alloc(sizeof(*ptr))
> be
> 	ptr =3D alloc(sizeof(**ptr))

Never? Because in that case it probably should be *ptr=3Dalloc(sizeof(**ptr=
)), unless you are doing something horrible ;-)

Alexander