On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro > that nobody really had issues with?
That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more accurate "member" instead of "field" since a treewide change was happening anyway: https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/07/02/2 At the end of the day, I really don't care -- I just want to have _one_ macro. :) > (b) I see no sign of the networking people having been asked about > their preferences. Yeah, that's entirely true. Totally my mistake; it seemed like a trivial enough change that I didn't want to bother too many people. But let's fix that now... Dave, do you have any concerns about this change of FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member() (or if it prevails, sizeof_field())? -- Kees Cook
