Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )

Randy.Dunlap
2005-09-18T17:32:38Z

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:32:26 -0400 Robert Love wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 11:06 +0100, Russell King wrote:
>
> > +The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
> > +
> > + p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...);
> > +
> > +The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and
> > +introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed
> > +but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Also, after Alan's #4:
>
> 5. Contrary to the above statement, such coding style does not help,
> but in fact hurts, readability. How on Earth is sizeof(*p) more
> readable and information-rich than sizeof(struct foo)? It looks
> like the remains of a 5,000 year old wolverine's spleen and
> conveys no information about the type of the object that is being
> created.

I also dislike & disagree with the CodingStyle addition....

---
~Randy
You can't do anything without having to do something else first.
-- Belefant's Law