Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752799AbcCWU34 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:29:56 -0400 Received: from mta01.ornl.gov ([128.219.177.14]:2564 "EHLO mta01.ornl.gov" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096AbcCWU3z convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:29:55 -0400 X-SG: RELAYLIST X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,383,1454994000"; d="scan'208";a="124361293" From: "Simmons, James A." To: "'Joe Perches'" , "'Greg Kroah-Hartman'" , "Dilger, Andreas" CC: "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "Drokin, Oleg" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lustre Development List Subject: RE: [lustre-devel] [PATCH] Revert "Staging: lustre: o2iblnd: Use sizeof type *pointer instead of sizeof type." Thread-Topic: [lustre-devel] [PATCH] Revert "Staging: lustre: o2iblnd: Use sizeof type *pointer instead of sizeof type." Thread-Index: AQHRhKY7a2KAxvaNm0mbV55dcivlIJ9mxoYAgACGiYCAAA1oEIAASEMA///Y4iA= Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:29:49 +0000 Message-ID: <7dcad179d49c4535b4f24d3ceb85607a@EXCHCS32.ornl.gov> References: <1458685264-22755-1-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <20160323014916.GF3190@kroah.com> <20160323134107.GA4356@kroah.com> <1458758864.18165.4.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1458758864.18165.4.camel@perches.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [128.219.12.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 707 Lines: 20 >> > > so the right code should be: >> > > >> > > ????????sizeof(**net->ibn_tx_ps); >> > > and the same for sizeof(**net->ibn_fmr_ps) >> > That's a mess, isn't there some other way to fix this up to be more >> > "obvious"? >> This must have been encountered in the past. How was it handle in those >> other cases? > >I fail to see why it's a mess. It's just ** >and someone making a mistake. I have no trouble with **. If we revert it someone else will come along and do the same mistake so I think we are stuck with the change to **. >Removing the "typedef struct" uses from lustre >would probably make a lot of this clearer though. That along with a few hundred more patches heading Greg's way :-)