Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )

On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 11:06 +0100, Russell King wrote:

> +The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
> +
> +       p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...);
> +
> +The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and
> +introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed
> +but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not.

Agreed.

Also, after Alan's #4:

5.  Contrary to the above statement, such coding style does not help,
    but in fact hurts, readability.  How on Earth is sizeof(*p) more
    readable and information-rich than sizeof(struct foo)?  It looks
    like the remains of a 5,000 year old wolverine's spleen and
    conveys no information about the type of the object that is being
    created.

	Robert Love


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
    • From: Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>
  • Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
    • From: Coywolf Qi Hunt <[email protected]>
  • Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
    • From: "Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]>
  • Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
    • From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>

• References:
  • p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
• Next by Date: Re: Eradic disk access during reads
• Previous by thread: Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
• Next by thread: Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]