Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro

[Andreas Dilger]

On Jun 11, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>>> to FIELD_SIZEOF
>>> 
>>> As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields -
>>> they have members.  So this is an opportunity to switch everything to
>>> a new member_sizeof().
>>> 
>>> What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint?
>> 
>> I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
>> is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> 
> Erk.  Sorry, I should have grepped.
> 
>> That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
>> than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
>> which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
>> 
>> Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
>> patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
>> huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
>> would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
>> they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
>> whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.
> 
> In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove
> sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD().

The real question is whether we want to live with a sub-standard macro for
the next 20 years rather than taking the opportunity to clean it up now?

> I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in
> stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally
> defined.  Why is that?

Cheers, Andreas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP