[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77d68bcd-1ae4-4808-fc0b-6183ae5fb6c4@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:53:15 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: "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: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf()
>>> 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.
Is it interesting to see how different the software development opinions
can be for such an implementation detail?
> That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix patches
Can any deviations from the Linux coding style become "bugs" also in
your view of the software situation?
> because these are a waste of time
How do you value compliance with coding styles?
> and regularly introduce bugs.
Really?
Would you like to discuss concrete incidents any further?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists