Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752433AbcJJNH0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:07:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40558 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751895AbcJJNGd (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:06:33 -0400 From: Jes Sorensen To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Dan Carpenter , Richard Weinberger , "linux-raid\@vger.kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , Guoqing Jiang , Jens Axboe , Mike Christie , Neil Brown , Shaohua Li , Tomasz Majchrzak , LKML , "kernel-janitors\@vger.kernel.org" , Julia Lawall Subject: Re: md/raid1: Improve another size determination in setup_conf() References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <786843ef-4b6f-eb04-7326-2f6f5b408826@users.sourceforge.net> <9831fce9-d689-89e4-dec8-50cadcd13fdd@users.sourceforge.net> <20161007075345.GB6039@mwanda> <77d68bcd-1ae4-4808-fc0b-6183ae5fb6c4@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:06:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <77d68bcd-1ae4-4808-fc0b-6183ae5fb6c4@users.sourceforge.net> (SF Markus Elfring's message of "Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:53:15 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1167 Lines: 30 SF Markus Elfring writes: >>>> 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. >> >> sizeof(*ptr) is more future proof and normally more obvious and easier >> to review. > > Is it interesting to see how different the software development opinions > can be for such an implementation detail? > >> That said, I've tried to tell Markus to only send bugfix patches > > Can any deviations from the Linux coding style become "bugs" also in > your view of the software situation? > >> because these are a waste of time > > How do you value compliance with coding styles? The Linux Coding Style is not a law, nor is it at all perfect. You clearly misunderstood how Linux development work and you are doing a great job wasting everyone's time with this patchset. Jes