On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:32:26 -0400 Robert Love wrote:
> 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.
I also dislike & disagree with the CodingStyle addition....
---
~Randy
You can't do anything without having to do something else first.
-- Belefant's Law
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |