Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.4-rc1

[Kees Cook]

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())?

-- 
Kees Cook