linux-kernel - Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e5cddb79-1267-b2d8-c05b-1480096db21e@nod.at>
Date:   Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:06:29 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.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()

On 07.10.2016 10:53, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>> 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?

Just stop sending these kind of patches, *please*.
Linux has tons of issues, fixes for real problems are very welcome.
But coding style bike shedding is just a waste of time.

Thanks,
//richard