Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Francesco Magliocca <franciman12@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
        ath10k@lists.infradead.org, rmanohar@qti.qualcomm.com,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Use of void pointer arithmetic?
References: <20220221122638.7971-1-franciman12@gmail.com>
        <e32de43c-e00a-5766-e988-fe192d36d719@quicinc.com>
        <CAH4F6utmtAM3CzX2_Fbn94Sb-X8m0patPh8yWwbuBB0t1VYH=g@mail.gmail.com>
        <87o82wvhtk.fsf@kernel.org> <20220224075346.GL3943@kadam>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:59:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220224075346.GL3943@kadam> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Thu,
        24 Feb 2022 10:53:46 +0300")
Message-ID: <87fso8vb3w.fsf_-_@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

(Changing subject, adding Linus and linux-kernel)

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:34:31AM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Francesco Magliocca <franciman12@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi, I picked (void*) to be conformant with the other examples in htt_rx.c
>> > For example at line 1431:
>> >>    rxd = HTT_RX_BUF_TO_RX_DESC(hw,
>> >>                    (void *)msdu->data - hw->rx_desc_ops->rx_desc_size);
>> >
>> > But for me it is ok. Maybe we should fix all the occurrences of this kind.
>> 
>> Yeah, it would be good to fix the void pointer arithmetic in a separate
>> patch. I have planning to enable -Wpointer-arith in my ath10k-check and
>> ath11k-check scripts, so patches are very welcome.
>
> Void * casts simplify a lot of code.  Less noise.  More readable.
> They're more accurate in a sense because it's not a u8 at all.  The
> kernel can't compile with other compilers besides GCC and Clang so why
> care about that the C standard hasn't caught up?
>
> What does -Wpointer-arith buy us?

A good question. I have always just thought we should avoid void pointer
arithmetic due to the C standard, but now that you mention it void
pointers can indeed simplify the code. So I'm not so sure anymore.

Any opinions? Is there a kernel wide recommendation for this?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches