On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:49:34AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> pardon the interruption but, once upon a time, we were discussing
> cleaning up code to use the kernel.h-defined macro "FIELD_SIZEOF".
>
> some folks suggested that the macro name itself was kind of awkward
> as it didn't fit the pattern of "ARRAY_SIZE" defined in that same
> header file.
>
> because of a name clash, "FIELD_SIZE" is not available, but there
> was a suggestion of, uh, "MEMBER_SIZE". :-)
>
> so, really, those are the two viable choices -- stick with the
> current name of FIELD_SIZEOF, or switch to MEMBER_SIZE. switching is
> not a big deal since no one (at least, no one in the current tree)
> uses FIELD_SIZEOF as it is, so it's not as if it would be a disruptive
> change in the slightest.
K&R calls them 'members'.
We've currently got:
sizeof (built-in)
typeof (built-in)
offsetof (standard macro)
container_of (kernel macro) (1800 of these, ugh)
We don't want:
FIELD_SIZE - they're members
MEMBER_SIZE - inconsistent with the above
member_size - all the above have of
member_size_of - inconsistent with sizeof
member_sizeof - inconsistent _ between words
sizeof_member - same, plus other issues
memsizeof - confusion with memory
So my vote would be for:
membersizeof(a, b)
There's also at least two pieces of code that could use:
membertypeof(a, b)
And please kill all the reimplementations of offsetof while you're at it.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
