Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:32:34 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ) |
| |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:32:26 -0400 Robert Love wrote:
> 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.
I also dislike & disagree with the CodingStyle addition....
--- ~Randy You can't do anything without having to do something else first. -- Belefant's Law - 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/
| |