On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:56:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > 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())?
David, can you weight in on this? Are you okay with a mass renaming of FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member(), as the largest user of the old macro is in networking? Thanks! -- Kees Cook
