Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:25:10 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, mayhs11saini@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF
 macro
Message-ID: <20190629142510.GA10629@avx2>
References: <20190611193836.2772-1-shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20190611134831.a60c11f4b691d14d04a87e29@linux-foundation.org>
 <6DCAE4F8-3BEC-45F2-A733-F4D15850B7F3@dilger.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6DCAE4F8-3BEC-45F2-A733-F4D15850B7F3@dilger.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:

> I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> 
> That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> 
> Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.

The signature should be

	sizeof_member(T, m)

it is proper English,
it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
it uses standard term (member, not field),
it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,