On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:29:20AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, SF Markus Elfring > <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:46:18 +0200 > > > > Replace the specification of a data structure by a pointer dereference > > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding size > > determination a bit safer. > > Isn't this pure matter of taste? > Some developers prefer sizeof(*ptr) because it is easier to type, other > developers prefer sizeof(struct foo) because you can determine the type > at first sight and makes review more easy. > I am ignoring Markus patches and have told him that he should focus on bug fixes. These patches don't add any value and regularly introduce bugs. That said, "sizeof(*ptr)" is sort of official style. It's slightly more obvious and easier to review because all the information you need is on that one line. Also if we change the datatype of ptr then that format is slightly more future proof. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
