[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:53:45 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/54] md/raid1: Improve another size determination in
setup_conf()
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:29:20AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, SF Markus Elfring
> <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:46:18 +0200
> >
> > Replace the specification of a data structure by a pointer dereference
> > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding size
> > determination a bit safer.
>
> Isn't this pure matter of taste?
> Some developers prefer sizeof(*ptr) because it is easier to type, other
> developers prefer sizeof(struct foo) because you can determine the type
> at first sight and makes review more easy.
sizeof(*ptr) is more future proof and normally more obvious and easier
to review. That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix
patches because these are a waste of time and regularly introduce bugs.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists