Re: [PATCH 3/4] char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions

[Julia Lawall]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 14:58 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 11:50 +0000, Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Replace the specification of data structures by pointer dereferences
> > > > > > as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding
> > > > > > size
> > > > > > determination a bit safer according to the Linux coding style
> > > > > > convention.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch does one style in favor of the other.
> > > >
> > > > I actually prefer that style, so I'd welcome this change :)
> > >
> > > Style changes should be reviewed and documented, like any other code
> > > change, and added to Documentation/process/coding-style.rst or an
> > > equivalent file.
> >
> > Actually, it has been there for many years:
> >
> > 14) Allocating memory
> > ---------------------
> > ...
> > The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
> >
> > .. code-block:: c
> >
> > 	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.
>
> True, thanks for the reminder. ÂIs this common in new code? ÂIs there
> a script/ or some other automated way of catching this usage before
> patches are upstreamed?
>
> Just as you're doing here, the patch description should reference this
> in the patch description.

The comment in the documentation seems have been there since Linux 2.6.14,
ie 2005.  The fact that a lot of code still doesn't use that style, 12
years later, suggests that actually it is not preferred, or not preferred
by everyone.  Perhaps the paragraph in coding style should just be
dropped.

julia