[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc4c54b79fb350c9c682ec9bca27562dc32c63e5.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 09:42:46 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: Use kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC in
atomic context
On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 17:30 +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 4:11:26 PM CET Larry Finger wrote:
> > Incidentally, I disagree with checkpatch in that I think that
> > sizeof(struct foo) is more descriptive than sizeof(*bar).
> I agree with you in full
It's not checkpatch in particular, it's from coding-style
The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
.. code-block:: c
p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists