Return-path: Received: from purkki.adurom.net ([80.68.90.206]:42319 "EHLO purkki.adurom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932802Ab2DTSkO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:40:14 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Julian Calaby , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] wireless: at76c50x: allocating too much data References: <20120420064705.GE22649@elgon.mountain> <20120420091449.GI27101@mwanda> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:14:44 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20120420091449.GI27101@mwanda> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:14:49 +0300") Message-ID: <87vcku9sob.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> (sfid-20120420_204021_358458_FFC1E697) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dan Carpenter writes: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:57:00PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: >> > -       struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_phy), GFP_KERNEL); >> > +       struct mib_local *m = kmalloc(sizeof(struct mib_local), GFP_KERNEL); >> >> Would it be better practice to use sizeof(*m)? >> > > That was my temptation as well... But I decided to make it match > with the surrounding code. I'm happy to resend if people want. IMHO sizeof(*m) is better and I tend to use it. Related to this: I have a bad habit of sometimes dropping '*' from sizeof()? Is there a tool which could spot that? -- Kalle Valo