Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. > > sizeof(*ptr) is more future proof and normally more obvious and easier > to review. That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix > patches because these are a waste of time and regularly introduce bugs. This is totally a matter of taste. I for one find it way easier to review something which says 'sizeof(struct ....)' because it stands out more. I am curious what you mean by it being more future proof - if the code says 'struct foo' in the sizeof argument, what is the problem? The one area where there is a higher risk is if the type is changed, but that is outweighed by the fact the spelled out version is easier to review. Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
