Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965808AbcJFJ3Z (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:29:25 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:36676 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S964918AbcJFJ3W (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:29:22 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net>
 <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net>
From: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:29:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvx0Fr-WNvKYACdvNiZwYzHW4ocna9HPH8J_WPSXWc+ngg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/54] md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf()
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@suse.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@suse.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
        Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 608
Lines: 17

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:46:18 +0200
>
> Replace the specification of a data structure by a pointer dereference
> as the parameter for the operator "sizeof" to make the corresponding size
> determination a bit safer.

Isn't this pure matter of taste?
Some developers prefer sizeof(*ptr) because it is easier to type, other
developers prefer sizeof(struct foo) because you can determine the type
at first sight and makes review more easy.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard