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
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
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()
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
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().
> > >
> > >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
