From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946408AbXBCI5x (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:57:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946410AbXBCI5x (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:57:53 -0500 Received: from waste.org ([66.93.16.53]:44288 "EHLO waste.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946408AbXBCI5w (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:57:52 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 02:45:26 -0600 From: Matt Mackall To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: a quick survey: "FIELD_SIZEOF" or "MEMBER_SIZE"? Message-ID: <20070203084526.GG16722@waste.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:49:34AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > pardon the interruption but, once upon a time, we were discussing > cleaning up code to use the kernel.h-defined macro "FIELD_SIZEOF". > > some folks suggested that the macro name itself was kind of awkward > as it didn't fit the pattern of "ARRAY_SIZE" defined in that same > header file. > > because of a name clash, "FIELD_SIZE" is not available, but there > was a suggestion of, uh, "MEMBER_SIZE". :-) > > so, really, those are the two viable choices -- stick with the > current name of FIELD_SIZEOF, or switch to MEMBER_SIZE. switching is > not a big deal since no one (at least, no one in the current tree) > uses FIELD_SIZEOF as it is, so it's not as if it would be a disruptive > change in the slightest. K&R calls them 'members'. We've currently got: sizeof (built-in) typeof (built-in) offsetof (standard macro) container_of (kernel macro) (1800 of these, ugh) We don't want: FIELD_SIZE - they're members MEMBER_SIZE - inconsistent with the above member_size - all the above have of member_size_of - inconsistent with sizeof member_sizeof - inconsistent _ between words sizeof_member - same, plus other issues memsizeof - confusion with memory So my vote would be for: membersizeof(a, b) There's also at least two pieces of code that could use: membertypeof(a, b) And please kill all the reimplementations of offsetof while you're at it. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.