On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:14:44PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:57:00PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: > >> > - struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_phy), GFP_KERNEL); > >> > + struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_local), GFP_KERNEL); > >> > >> Would it be better practice to use sizeof(*m)? > >> > > > > That was my temptation as well... But I decided to make it match > > with the surrounding code. I'm happy to resend if people want. > > IMHO sizeof(*m) is better and I tend to use it. > > Related to this: I have a bad habit of sometimes dropping '*' from > sizeof()? Is there a tool which could spot that? > That's what I was working on for Smatch when I sent this patch. The odd thing is that I can't find any bugs like this in the kernel. If sizeof(foo) is less than sizeof(*foo), which is probably the normal case, then these get caught early on in testing. Still I think people must have done manual audits as well... It feels too clean to be natural. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
