Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Oct 2019 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:19:16 -0700
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:56:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro >> > that nobody really had issues with? >> >> That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more accurate "member" >> instead of "field" since a treewide change was happening anyway: >> https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/07/02/2 >> >> At the end of the day, I really don't care -- I just want to have _one_ >> macro. :) >> >> > (b) I see no sign of the networking people having been asked about >> > their preferences. >> >> Yeah, that's entirely true. Totally my mistake; it seemed like a trivial >> enough change that I didn't want to bother too many people. But let's >> fix that now... Dave, do you have any concerns about this change of >> FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member() (or if it prevails, sizeof_field())? > > David, can you weight in on this? Are you okay with a mass renaming of > FIELD_SIZEOF() to sizeof_member(), as the largest user of the old macro > is in networking?
I have no objection to moving to sizeof_member().
| |