From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.infineon.com (smtp2.infineon.com [IPv6:2a00:18f0:1e00:4::4]) (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 3yH7wG4xt2zDrD6 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:44:13 +1100 (AEDT) From: To: CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: RE: char-TPM: Adjustments for ten function implementations Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1d3516a2-a8e6-9e95-d438-f115fac84c7f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171016183139.otyh3m5c5yurtmow@linux.intel.com> <20171016183512.3bz6x4b6lbhpbkje@linux.intel.com> <20171017085124.pkrjzghcf5wmcydc@mwanda> <1508255833.3129.33.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1508280210.6530.32.camel@perches.com> <1508318326.6806.1.camel@perches.com> <026d582729b849b780fbaa06fb8bc79e@infineon.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com wrote: >=20 > > > On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:00 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > The printk removals do change the objects. > > > > > > > > > > The value of that type of change is only for resource limited sys= tems. > > > > > > > > I imagine that such small code adjustments are also useful for othe= r > > > systems. > > > > > > Your imagination and mine differ. > > > Where do you _think_ it matters? > > > > > > 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. >=20 > I don't think there is a perfect solution. Maybe. But for the second variant the correctness is easier to check, both = mentally and programmatically, because there is no need for any context (th= e type of ptr does not matter). > The type argument to sizeof > could have the wrong type. The expression argument to sizeof could be > missing the *. Unpleasant consequences are possible in both cases. > Probably each maintainer has a style they prefer. Perhaps it could be > useful to adjust the code to follow the dominant strategy, in cases where > there are a inconsistencies. Certainly. At least within a file, there should be only one style. > For example >=20 > if (...) > x =3D foo1(sizeof(struct xtype)); > else > x =3D foo2(sizeof(*x)); >=20 > might at least cause some unnecessary mental effort to process. >=20 > julia Alexander