Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 17:25 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini > > > > wrote: > > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. > > > > > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or > > > "sizeof_member()" > > > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original > > > "sizeof()". > > > > > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. > > > > The signature should be > > > > sizeof_member(T, m) > > > > it is proper English, > > it is lowercase, so is easier to type, > > it uses standard term (member, not field), > > it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator, > > yes please. > > Also, a simple script conversion applied > immediately after an rc1 might be easiest > rather than individual patches. This seems reasonable to me. I think the patch steps would be: 1) implement sizeof_member(T, m) as a stand-alone macro 2) do a scripted replacement of all identical macros. 3) remove all the identical macros. Step 2 can be a patch that includes the script used to do the replacement. That way Linus can choose to just run the script instead of taking the patch. -- Kees Cook ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini > > wrote: > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. The signature should be sizeof_member(T, m) it is proper English, it is lowercase, so is easier to type, it uses standard term (member, not field), it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator, ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 17:25 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini > > > wrote: > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. > > > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" > > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". > > > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. > > The signature should be > > sizeof_member(T, m) > > it is proper English, > it is lowercase, so is easier to type, > it uses standard term (member, not field), > it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator, yes please. Also, a simple script conversion applied immediately after an rc1 might be easiest rather than individual patches. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:00 PM Shyam Saini wrote: > > Currently, there are 3 different macros, namely sizeof_field, SIZEOF_FIELD > and FIELD_SIZEOF which are used to calculate the size of a member of > structure, so to bring uniformity in entire kernel source tree lets use > FIELD_SIZEOF and replace all occurrences of other two macros with this. > > For this purpose, redefine FIELD_SIZEOF in include/linux/stddef.h and > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h and remove its defination from > include/linux/kernel.h please dont. bpf_util.h is a user space header. Please leave it as-is. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini > wrote: > >> Currently, there are 3 different macros, namely sizeof_field, SIZEOF_FIELD >> and FIELD_SIZEOF which are used to calculate the size of a member of >> structure, so to bring uniformity in entire kernel source tree lets use >> FIELD_SIZEOF and replace all occurrences of other two macros with this. >> >> For this purpose, redefine FIELD_SIZEOF in include/linux/stddef.h and >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h and remove its defination from >> include/linux/kernel.h >> >> In favour of FIELD_SIZEOF, this patch also deprecates other two similar >> macros sizeof_field and SIZEOF_FIELD. >> >> For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a wrapper macro >> to FIELD_SIZEOF > > As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - > they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to > a new member_sizeof(). > > What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Jun 11, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > to FIELD_SIZEOF >>> >>> As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - >>> they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to >>> a new member_sizeof(). >>> >>> What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? >> >> I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() >> is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. > > Erk. Sorry, I should have grepped. > >> That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" >> than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with >> which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". >> >> Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of >> patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no >> huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It >> would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so >> they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be >> whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. > > In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove > sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD(). The real question is whether we want to live with a sub-standard macro for the next 20 years rather than taking the opportunity to clean it up now? > I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in > stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally > defined. Why is that? Cheers, Andreas signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Hi Kees,
Cc'ing William Kucharski,
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 01:08:36AM +0530, Shyam Saini wrote:
> > In favour of FIELD_SIZEOF, this patch also deprecates other two similar
> > macros sizeof_field and SIZEOF_FIELD.
> >
> > For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a wrapper macro
> > to FIELD_SIZEOF
>
> Can you explain this part? First sentence says you want to remove
> sizeof_field, and the second says you're keeping it? I thought the point
> was to switch all of these to FIELD_SIZEOF()?
Previously, William [1] suggested to retain sizeof_field as macro to
FIELD_SIZEOF
for code compatibility reason. I have removed all the usage of
sizeof_field apart from retained
wrapper macro definition.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1085275/
Thanks,
Shyam
> >
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 10 +-
> > arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c | 9 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_fid.c | 4 ++--
> > fs/befs/linuxvfs.c | 2 +-
> > fs/ext2/super.c| 2 +-
> > fs/ext4/super.c| 2 +-
> > fs/freevxfs/vxfs_super.c | 2 +-
> > fs/orangefs/super.c| 2 +-
> > fs/ufs/super.c | 2 +-
> > include/linux/kernel.h | 9 -
> > include/linux/slab.h | 2 +-
> > include/linux/stddef.h | 17 ++---
> > kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
> > kernel/utsname.c | 2 +-
> > net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
> > net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
> > net/ipv4/raw.c | 2 +-
> > net/ipv6/raw.c | 2 +-
> > net/sctp/socket.c | 4 ++--
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 22
> > +++---
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c| 2 +-
> > 22 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> > index fcd0e691b1ea..ace906d887cc 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> > @@ -164,13 +164,13 @@ static inline void
> > arch_thread_struct_whitelist(unsigned long *offset,
> > unsigned long *size)
> > {
> > /* Verify that there is no padding among the whitelisted fields: */
> > - BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw) !=
> > - sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.tp_value) +
> > - sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.tp2_value) +
> > - sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.fpsimd_state));
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw) !=
> > + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.tp_value) +
> > + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.tp2_value) +
> > + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.fpsimd_state));
> >
> > *offset = offsetof(struct thread_struct, uw);
> > - *size = sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw);
> > + *size = FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw);
> > }
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > diff --git a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> > b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> > index ba8f82a29a81..44b506a14666 100644
> > --- a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> > +++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> > @@ -45,13 +45,6 @@ static struct cvmx_bootmem_desc *cvmx_bootmem_desc;
> > /* See header file for descriptions of functions */
> >
> > /**
> > - * This macro returns the size of a member of a structure.
> > - * Logically it is the same as "sizeof(s::field)" in C++, but
> > - * C lacks the "::" operator.
> > - */
> > -#define SIZEOF_FIELD(s, field) sizeof(((s *)NULL)->field)
> > -
> > -/**
> > * This macro returns a member of the
> > * cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc_t structure. These members can't
> > * be directly addressed as they might be in memory not directly
> > @@ -65,7 +58,7 @@ static struct cvmx_bootmem_desc *cvmx_bootmem_desc;
> > #define CVMX_BOOTMEM_NAMED_GET_FIELD(addr, field)\
> > __cvmx_bootmem_desc_get(addr, \
> > offsetof(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field), \
> > - SIZEOF_FIELD(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field))
> > + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field))
> >
> > /**
> > * This function is the implementation of the get macros
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Hi Andrew, > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > >> to FIELD_SIZEOF > > > > > > As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - > > > they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to > > > a new member_sizeof(). > > > > > > What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? > > > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. > > Erk. Sorry, I should have grepped. > > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" > > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". > > > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. > > In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove > sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD(). > > I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in > stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally > defined. Why is that? Thanks for pointing out this, I was not aware if this is a convention. Anyway, I'll keep FIELD_SIZEOF definition in kernel.h in next version. ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Currently, there are 3 different macros, namely sizeof_field, SIZEOF_FIELD
and FIELD_SIZEOF which are used to calculate the size of a member of
structure, so to bring uniformity in entire kernel source tree lets use
FIELD_SIZEOF and replace all occurrences of other two macros with this.
For this purpose, redefine FIELD_SIZEOF in include/linux/stddef.h and
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h and remove its defination from
include/linux/kernel.h
In favour of FIELD_SIZEOF, this patch also deprecates other two similar
macros sizeof_field and SIZEOF_FIELD.
For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a wrapper macro
to FIELD_SIZEOF
Signed-off-by: Shyam Saini
---
Changelog:
V1->V2
- Consolidate previous patch 1 and 2 into single patch
- For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a
wrapper macro to FIELD_SIZEOF
arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 10 +-
arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c | 9 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_fid.c | 4 ++--
fs/befs/linuxvfs.c | 2 +-
fs/ext2/super.c| 2 +-
fs/ext4/super.c| 2 +-
fs/freevxfs/vxfs_super.c | 2 +-
fs/orangefs/super.c| 2 +-
fs/ufs/super.c | 2 +-
include/linux/kernel.h | 9 -
include/linux/slab.h | 2 +-
include/linux/stddef.h | 17 ++---
kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
kernel/utsname.c | 2 +-
net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
net/ipv4/raw.c | 2 +-
net/ipv6/raw.c | 2 +-
net/sctp/socket.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 22 +++---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c| 2 +-
22 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
index fcd0e691b1ea..ace906d887cc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -164,13 +164,13 @@ static inline void arch_thread_struct_whitelist(unsigned
long *offset,
unsigned long *size)
{
/* Verify that there is no padding among the whitelisted fields: */
- BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw) !=
-sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.tp_value) +
-sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.tp2_value) +
-sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.fpsimd_state));
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw) !=
+FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.tp_value) +
+FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.tp2_value) +
+FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.fpsimd_state));
*offset = offsetof(struct thread_struct, uw);
- *size = sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw);
+ *size = FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
diff --git a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
index ba8f82a29a81..44b506a14666 100644
--- a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
+++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
@@ -45,13 +45,6 @@ static struct cvmx_bootmem_desc *cvmx_bootmem_desc;
/* See header file for descriptions of functions */
/**
- * This macro returns the size of a member of a structure.
- * Logically it is the same as "sizeof(s::field)" in C++, but
- * C lacks the "::" operator.
- */
-#define SIZEOF_FIELD(s, field) sizeof(((s *)NULL)->field)
-
-/**
* This macro returns a member of the
* cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc_t structure. These members can't
* be directly addressed as they might be in memory not directly
@@ -65,7 +58,7 @@ static struct cvmx_bootmem_desc *cvmx_bootmem_desc;
#define CVMX_BOOTMEM_NAMED_GET_FIELD(addr, field) \
__cvmx_bootmem_desc_get(addr, \
offsetof(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field), \
- SIZEOF_FIELD(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field))
+ FIELD_SIZEOF(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field))
/**
* This function is the implementation of the get macros defined
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
index 0f919f0a43d4..820f95a52542 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
+++
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > >> to FIELD_SIZEOF > > > > As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - > > they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to > > a new member_sizeof(). > > > > What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field() > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x. Erk. Sorry, I should have grepped. > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()" > than FIELD_SIZEOF(). Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()". > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone. It > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees. In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD(). I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally defined. Why is that? ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini wrote: > Currently, there are 3 different macros, namely sizeof_field, SIZEOF_FIELD > and FIELD_SIZEOF which are used to calculate the size of a member of > structure, so to bring uniformity in entire kernel source tree lets use > FIELD_SIZEOF and replace all occurrences of other two macros with this. > > For this purpose, redefine FIELD_SIZEOF in include/linux/stddef.h and > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h and remove its defination from > include/linux/kernel.h > > In favour of FIELD_SIZEOF, this patch also deprecates other two similar > macros sizeof_field and SIZEOF_FIELD. > > For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a wrapper macro > to FIELD_SIZEOF As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields - they have members. So this is an opportunity to switch everything to a new member_sizeof(). What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint? ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 01:08:36AM +0530, Shyam Saini wrote:
> In favour of FIELD_SIZEOF, this patch also deprecates other two similar
> macros sizeof_field and SIZEOF_FIELD.
>
> For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a wrapper macro
> to FIELD_SIZEOF
Can you explain this part? First sentence says you want to remove
sizeof_field, and the second says you're keeping it? I thought the point
was to switch all of these to FIELD_SIZEOF()?
-Kees
>
> Signed-off-by: Shyam Saini
> ---
> Changelog:
>
> V1->V2
> - Consolidate previous patch 1 and 2 into single patch
> - For code compatibility reason, retain sizeof_field macro as a
> wrapper macro to FIELD_SIZEOF
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 10 +-
> arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c | 9 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c | 2 +-
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_fid.c | 4 ++--
> fs/befs/linuxvfs.c | 2 +-
> fs/ext2/super.c| 2 +-
> fs/ext4/super.c| 2 +-
> fs/freevxfs/vxfs_super.c | 2 +-
> fs/orangefs/super.c| 2 +-
> fs/ufs/super.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/kernel.h | 9 -
> include/linux/slab.h | 2 +-
> include/linux/stddef.h | 17 ++---
> kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
> kernel/utsname.c | 2 +-
> net/caif/caif_socket.c | 2 +-
> net/core/skbuff.c | 2 +-
> net/ipv4/raw.c | 2 +-
> net/ipv6/raw.c | 2 +-
> net/sctp/socket.c | 4 ++--
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 22
> +++---
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c| 2 +-
> 22 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> index fcd0e691b1ea..ace906d887cc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -164,13 +164,13 @@ static inline void
> arch_thread_struct_whitelist(unsigned long *offset,
> unsigned long *size)
> {
> /* Verify that there is no padding among the whitelisted fields: */
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw) !=
> - sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.tp_value) +
> - sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.tp2_value) +
> - sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw.fpsimd_state));
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw) !=
> + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.tp_value) +
> + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.tp2_value) +
> + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw.fpsimd_state));
>
> *offset = offsetof(struct thread_struct, uw);
> - *size = sizeof_field(struct thread_struct, uw);
> + *size = FIELD_SIZEOF(struct thread_struct, uw);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> diff --git a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> index ba8f82a29a81..44b506a14666 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/executive/cvmx-bootmem.c
> @@ -45,13 +45,6 @@ static struct cvmx_bootmem_desc *cvmx_bootmem_desc;
> /* See header file for descriptions of functions */
>
> /**
> - * This macro returns the size of a member of a structure.
> - * Logically it is the same as "sizeof(s::field)" in C++, but
> - * C lacks the "::" operator.
> - */
> -#define SIZEOF_FIELD(s, field) sizeof(((s *)NULL)->field)
> -
> -/**
> * This macro returns a member of the
> * cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc_t structure. These members can't
> * be directly addressed as they might be in memory not directly
> @@ -65,7 +58,7 @@ static struct cvmx_bootmem_desc *cvmx_bootmem_desc;
> #define CVMX_BOOTMEM_NAMED_GET_FIELD(addr, field)\
> __cvmx_bootmem_desc_get(addr, \
> offsetof(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field), \
> - SIZEOF_FIELD(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field))
> + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct cvmx_bootmem_named_block_desc, field))
>
> /**
> * This function is the implementation of the get macros defined
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> index 0f919f0a43d4..820f95a52542 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c
> @@
