Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 2 Sep 2007 14:30:32 +0800 | From | "rae l" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net/ipv4/af_inet.c: use ARRAY_SIZE macro from kernel.h instead |
| |
On 9/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Denis Cheng wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <crquan@gmail.com> > > --- > > net/ipv4/af_inet.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > > index e681034..d5e8b67 100644 > > --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > > +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > > @@ -939,7 +939,7 @@ static struct inet_protosw inetsw_array[] = > > } > > }; > > > > -#define INETSW_ARRAY_LEN (sizeof(inetsw_array) / sizeof(struct inet_protosw)) > > +#define INETSW_ARRAY_LEN ARRAY_SIZE(inetsw_array) > > > > void inet_register_protosw(struct inet_protosw *p) > > { > > denis: > > if you're planning on doing this ARRAY_SIZE cleanup fairly rigorously, > here's an overview of what you're looking (based on a fairly dumb > scanning script that undoubtedly generates some false positives). of > course, the respective subsystem maintainers are welcome to deal with > them first, of course. > > p.s. and when you submit those patches, it's necessary to submit them > to only the appropriate subsystem mailing lists, not to the LKML in > general. I didn't realize that there's so many places to switch to ARRAY_SIZE, so now I wonder is this cleaning work valuable to the whole kernel tree? or we can keep the current state and just encourage new code to use ARRAY_SIZE?
-- Denis - 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/
| |