On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:21:21PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700 > > > 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? > > I have no objection to moving to sizeof_member().
Great; thank you! Linus, are you still open to taking this series with Dave's buy-in? I'd really hate to break it up since it's such a mechanical treewide change. I'm also happy to wait until the next -rc1 window; whatever you think is best here. Thanks! -- Kees Cook
