Re: renaming FIELD_SIZEOF to sizeof_member

[David Miller]

From: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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().