Message-ID: <c325748d-6faf-9fee-60ae-bf8b6b812c2a@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:13:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] Add memberof(), split some headers, and slightly
 simplify code
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <YZe9yYBvE038/w90@localhost.localdomain>
From:   "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YZe9yYBvE038/w90@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Alexey,

On 11/19/21 16:07, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> +#define memberof(T, m)   (((T *) NULL)->m)
>> +
>>  #define typeof_member(T, m)	typeof(((T*)0)->m)
> 
> No.
> 
> Your macro exists already under different name.
> 
> sizeof_member and typeof_member exist, you don't anything more.
> 

The macro memberof() exists in one file (or 2)
under the name struct_member(), IIRC.

sizeof_member(), which is actually sizeof_field, IIRC,
and typeof_member(),
make use of this construction,
but they unnecessarily repeat it,
and there are other cases where code wants exactly memberof(),
not any of its wrappers.

I think that macro makes a lot of sense.

If you prefer the name struct_member() instead of memberof(),
I'm fine with it.
I just found that name much later than writing memberof(),
and memberof() was more consistent
with the typical naming of xxxof() for similar macros.

Thanks,
Alex

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/