Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fix for v5.9-rc6
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Sep 18 2020 - 16:41:04 EST
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:29 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In general (i.e. outside the implementation of the macro itself), what
> is the preferred way of getting the size of just the header?
> 1) offsetof(typeof(s),flex)
> 2) struct_size(s, flex, 0)
I think those two should end up being equivalent.
> 3) sizeof(s)
This works right now, but exactly *because* it works, we're not seeing
the questionable cases.
Of course, _also_ exactly because it just silently works, I also don't
know if there may be thousands of perfectly fine uses where people
really do want the header, and a "sizeof()" is simpler than
It's possible that there really are a lot of "I want to know just the
header size" cases. It sounds odd, but I could _imagine_ situations
like that, even though no actual case comes to mind.
> 4) new macro that's easier to read than 1 or 2, but makes it clear
> what you're doing?
I don't think this would have any real advantage, would it?
Now what might be good is if we can make "struct_size()" also actually
verify that the member that is passed in is that last non-sized
member. I'm not sure how to do that.
I know how to check that it's *not* that last unsized member (just do
"sizeof(s->flex)", and it should error), but I don't see how to assert
the reverse of that).
Because that kind of "yes, we actually pass in the right member" check
would be good to have too.