On 15/01/2019 11:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> Fix error usage to sizeof. It should not use sizeof to pointer. >>> >>> .... because? >>> >>> The commit message needs to explain what the potential issue could be >>> and why it doesn't matter in this case. >> I see the definition of pte_t may be more than sizeof(unsigned long). >> So I think sizeof(pte_t) is safer. > > What exactly is the difference between: > > pte_t *p; > > sizeof(*p) > > and > > sizeof(pte_t) > > and what is safer about the latter?
Please note that the current code is using sizeof(p) instead of sizeof(*p). And this is really different for X86_32 PAE. Juergen > > Answer: No difference and nothing is safer because it's exactly the same. > > In general we use sizeof(*p) simply because when the data type of p changes > you don't have to update the code, it just works and stays correct. > > Thanks, > > tglx >
