On 9/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Denis Cheng wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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 [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]
