On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 08:52 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 11:50 +0000, Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote: > > > > Replace the specification of data structures by pointer > > > > dereferences > > > > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the > > > > corresponding > > > > size > > > > determination a bit safer according to the Linux coding style > > > > convention. > > > > > > > > > This patch does one style in favor of the other. > > > > I actually prefer that style, so I'd welcome this change :) > > Style changes should be reviewed and documented, like any other code > change, and added to Documentation/process/coding-style.rst or an > equivalent file. +1. > > > At the end it's Jarkko's call, though I would NAK this as I think > > > some > > > one already told this to you for some other similar patch(es). > > > > > > > > > I even would suggest to stop doing this noisy stuff, which keeps > > > people > > > busy for nothing. > > > > Cleaning up old code is also worth something, even if does not > > change one bit in the assembly output in the end... > > Wow, you're opening the door really wide for all sorts of trivial > changes! Hope you have the time and inclination to review and comment > on all of them. I certainly don't. Moreover and not so obvious is an open door for making back port of *real* fixes much harder! > There is a major difference between adding these sorts of checks to > the tools in the scripts directory or even to the zero day bots that > catch different sorts of errors, BEFORE code is upstreamed, and > patches like these, after the fact. +1. > After the code has been upstreamed, it is a lot more difficult to > justify changes like this. It impacts both code that is being > developed AND backporting bug fixes. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy
