Hello Andy,
On 2023-08-17 23:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:34 PM Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2023-08-17 16:33, Lucas Segarra Fernandez wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Some comment about the name:
>>
>> ARRAY_SIZE() is rather ambiguous, as there's array_size()[1], which means the
>> number of bytes needed to represent the array. I suggest a name based on
>>
>> - _Lengthof() It has been proposed to ISO C to get the number of elements
>> of an array:
>> <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2529.pdf>.
>>
>> - sizeof_field() The kernel macro for the size of a struct member
>>
>> So, how about lengthof_field()?
>
> TBH I do not understand the motivation of making this kind of
> confusion and inconsistency.
> Are you suggesting renaming ARRAY_SIZE()
> to begin with?
No. ARRAY_SIZE is a very old and known API. It is array_size() that is
to be blamed, due to having a confusing name.
What I suggest is not reusing the root of the name of ARRAY_SIZE(), which
since the addition of array_size() may be less unambiguous (IMHO).
So, instead of ARRAY_SIZE_*(), which is derived from ARRAY_SIZE(), maybe
it would be more unambiguous to use the _Lengthof() name as a root, since
nobody has messed with it so far.
My suggestion is to keep ARRAY_SIZE() with its old name, but use
lengthof_field() for this struct variant of it. It's also a shorter name,
which will make for shorter lines.
b19d57d0f3cc ("overflow.h: Add flex_array_size() helper")
- (Mon Jun 8 20:22:33 2020 -0500)
610b15c50e86 ("overflow.h: Add allocation size calculation helpers")
- (Mon May 7 16:47:02 2018 -0700)
Nevertheless, it was just a minor suggestion, and if array_size() was
seen as a good enough name, it wouldn't be as confusing as it seems to
me. If you find them to be fine, go ahead.
Cheers,
Alex
> If so, it's definitely out of the scope of this series.
>
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5