On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:47:32PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:53:42AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > On 9/18/05, Robert Love <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yes it does. The semantics are clearly "I want enough memory to hold
> > > the type this pointer points to." While sizeof(struct foo) might seem
> > > more readable, it is in fact not as you have no way of knowing whether
> > > the allocation is correct or not by looking at the line. So for
> > > spotting allocation errors with grep, the shorter form is better (and
> > > arguably less error-prone).
> >
> > Huh??? How do you use grep to find something of that sort?
>
> To find candidates, something like:
>
> grep "kmalloc(sizeof([^*]" -r drivers/ | grep -v "sizeof(struct"
>
> And then use my eyes to find real bugs.
"grep for kmallocs that do not have _either_ form and look for bugs among
them" is hardly usable as an argument in favour of one of them...
-
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]
| |
 |