[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201907020931.2170BAB@keescook>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:33:02 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@...rulasolutions.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...ts.orangefs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, mayhs11saini@...il.com
Subject: Re: [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 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@...rulasolutions.com> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
