[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1495489398.2093.48.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 14:43:18 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: delete "kmalloc(sizeof(*var))" as
preferred allocation form
On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 00:38 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> There are valid reasons for
>
> malloc(sizeof(struct S))
>
> form:
>
> * struct S acts as an anchor for ctags quickly reminding which type is
> in focus
>
> * argument re changing name prevents bugs is semi bogus:
> such changes are rare,
> "void *" cast gives both forms equal opportunity to be screwed up
>
> * proper way to fix those rare misallocation bugs (which indeed happened)
> is type safe allocation macros (see tmalloc from Samba).
>
> However amount of disruption will be so high so it may never be done.
>
> * ratio of allocation styles is ~6400:12000 which is about 1:2
> so the amount of churn to maintain this rule is pretty high in theory.
>
> The winning move is to not play and not encourage people send trivial stuff.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> ---
>
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 10 ----------
> 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -808,16 +808,6 @@ kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kmalloc_array(), kcalloc(), vmalloc(), and
> vzalloc(). Please refer to the API documentation for further information
> about them.
>
> -The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
> -
> -.. code-block:: c
> -
> - 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.
> -
> Casting the return value which is a void pointer is redundant. The conversion
> from void pointer to any other pointer type is guaranteed by the C programming
> language.
Thanks. I agree with this deletion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists