[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1435697550.12101.33.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:52:30 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Fujinaka, Todd" <todd.fujinaka@...el.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
"Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
"Vick, Matthew" <matthew.vick@...el.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"pankaj.m@...sung.com" <pankaj.m@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/1] igb: Use ARRAY_SIZE instead fo
sizeof(a)/sizeof(a[0])
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 20:16 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
> Sorry for the top-posting, but I'm provided with the tools they give me
> and bottom posting from Outlook just confuses email threads. Plus, this
> was crossposted all over creation and cc-ed to anyone with an intel
> address.
Not quite. It was posted to the names listed under the
MAINTAINERS entry.
INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS
M: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
R: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
R: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...el.com>
R: Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
R: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
R: Matthew Vick <matthew.vick@...el.com>
R: John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>
R: Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
L: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
btw: You aren't listed there Todd. Should you be?
> I still would say no if I'm allowed, because to guarantee that this
> change - that I don't think fixes anything
Simplicity for the reader is generally a good thing.
Removing the macros altogether is likely better.
> - works in all cases, we
> need to do an incredible amount of regression testing.
Compilers should not produce different object code.
Verification of no object changes should be good enough.
> Every variant of
> every Intel part that uses this driver (and there are many) should be
> tested and will end up being used by the community.
>
> Plus, you have no idea the number of obscure bugs I have to deal with
> as the guy answering customer questions. If this triggers some odd
> embedded compiler bug, I'm going to have to dig it out. Unless there is
> an actual bug, I'd like to leave it as it is.
If any compiler miscompiles the ARRAY_SIZE macro, there are bound to
be real issues with using that compiler in a production environment.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists