Re: [PATCH] net/ipv4/af_inet.c: use ARRAY_SIZE macro from kernel.h instead

["rae l" <crquan@gmail.com>]

On 9/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Denis Cheng wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <crquan@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/af_inet.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > index e681034..d5e8b67 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> > @@ -939,7 +939,7 @@ static struct inet_protosw inetsw_array[] =
> >         }
> >  };
> >
> > -#define INETSW_ARRAY_LEN (sizeof(inetsw_array) / sizeof(struct inet_protosw))
> > +#define INETSW_ARRAY_LEN ARRAY_SIZE(inetsw_array)
> >
> >  void inet_register_protosw(struct inet_protosw *p)
> >  {
>
> denis:
>
> if you're planning on doing this ARRAY_SIZE cleanup fairly rigorously,
> here's an overview of what you're looking (based on a fairly dumb
> scanning script that undoubtedly generates some false positives).  of
> course, the respective subsystem maintainers are welcome to deal with
> them first, of course.
>
> p.s.  and when you submit those patches, it's necessary to submit them
> to only the appropriate subsystem mailing lists, not to the LKML in
> general.
I didn't realize that there's so many places to switch to ARRAY_SIZE,
so now I wonder is this cleaning work valuable to the whole kernel tree?
or we can keep the current state and just encourage new code to use ARRAY_SIZE?

--
Denis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/