Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ) | From | Robert Love <> | Date | Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:32:26 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 11:06 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> +The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following: > + > + p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...); > + > +The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and > +introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed > +but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not.
Agreed.
Also, after Alan's #4:
5. Contrary to the above statement, such coding style does not help, but in fact hurts, readability. How on Earth is sizeof(*p) more readable and information-rich than sizeof(struct foo)? It looks like the remains of a 5,000 year old wolverine's spleen and conveys no information about the type of the object that is being created.
Robert Love
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |