On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. > > 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. The signature should be sizeof_member(T, m) it is proper English, it is lowercase, so is easier to type, it uses standard term (member, not field), it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,
