lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Date
On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently, there are 3 different macros, namely sizeof_field, SIZEOF_FIELD
>> and FIELD_SIZEOF which are used to calculate the size of a member of
>> structure, so to bring uniformity in entire kernel source tree lets use
>> FIELD_SIZEOF and replace all occurrences of other two macros with this.
>>
>> For this purpose, redefine FIELD_SIZEOF in include/linux/stddef.h and
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h and remove its defination from
>> include/linux/kernel.h
>>
>> In favour of FIELD_SIZEOF, this patch also deprecates other two similar
>> macros sizeof_field and SIZEOF_FIELD.
>>
>> For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a wrapper macro
>> to FIELD_SIZEOF
>
> As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields -
> they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to
> a new member_sizeof().
>
> What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint?

I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.

That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".

Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It
would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.

Cheers, Andreas





[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-11 23:01    [W:0.086 / U:12.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site