Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:28:00 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <>
To: Andrew Morton <>
Cc: Shyam Saini <>,,,,,,,,,,
 linux-ext4 <>,,,,,,,
 Alexey Dobriyan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF

On Jun 11, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Andrew Morton <> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:00:10 -0600 Andreas Dilger <> wrote:
>>> As Alexey has pointed out, C structs and unions don't have fields -
>>> they have members.  So this is an opportunity to switch everything to
>>> a new member_sizeof().
>>> What do people think of that and how does this impact the patch footprint?
>> I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
>> is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> Erk.  Sorry, I should have grepped.
>> 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.
> In that case I'd say let's live with FIELD_SIZEOF() and remove
> sizeof_field() and SIZEOF_FIELD().

The real question is whether we want to live with a sub-standard macro for
the next 20 years rather than taking the opportunity to clean it up now?

> I'm a bit surprised that the FIELD_SIZEOF() definition ends up in
> stddef.h rather than in kernel.h where such things are normally
> defined.  Why is that?

Cheers, Andreas

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.