linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/boot: sizeof macro

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: <CAHp75VdhZqRdRb2GJd4QnRoG6brYvfswZ6wR_pWEk+T-uJ3i5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 31 Dec 2017 13:48:28 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Saidgani Musaev <cpu808694@...il.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/boot: sizeof macro

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> * Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:

>> > -       ireg.cx  = sizeof buf;
>> > +       ireg.cx  = sizeof(buf);
>>
>> sizeof is operator, not a function.
>> So, what are you trying to achieve?
>
> That's true, but in the kernel coding style we use it as a function:

Yeah, the question is do we need to change all those 177 occurrences at all?
Or perhaps it might be an opportunity during some other changes to
certain users...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko