On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> to FIELD_SIZEOF > > > > As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - > > they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to > > a new member_sizeof(). > > > > What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. Erk. Sorry, I should have grepped. > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD(). I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally defined. Why is that?
