On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Juergen Gross wrote: > > 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). > > Ooops. That's wrong indeed, but we should not change it to sizeof(pte_t) > and change it to sizeof(*p) instead.
Which is what the patch actually does. Just the above reply: > > >> So I think sizeof(pte_t) is safer. confused the hell out of me. -ENOTENOUGHCOFFEE
