SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> 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. >> >> sizeof(*ptr) is more future proof and normally more obvious and easier >> to review. > > Is it interesting to see how different the software development opinions > can be for such an implementation detail? > >> That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix patches > > Can any deviations from the Linux coding style become "bugs" also in > your view of the software situation? > >> because these are a waste of time > > How do you value compliance with coding styles? The Linux Coding Style is not a law, nor is it at all perfect. You clearly misunderstood how Linux development work and you are doing a great job wasting everyone's time with this patchset. Jes -- 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
