Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:53:52 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ) |
| |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:47:32PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:53:42AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > On 9/18/05, Robert Love <rml@novell.com> wrote: > > > > 5. Contrary to the above statement, such coding style does not help, > > > > but in fact hurts, readability. How on Earth is sizeof(*p) more > > > > readable and information-rich than sizeof(struct foo)? It looks > > > > like the remains of a 5,000 year old wolverine's spleen and > > > > conveys no information about the type of the object that is being > > > > created. > > > > > > Yes it does. The semantics are clearly "I want enough memory to hold > > > the type this pointer points to." While sizeof(struct foo) might seem > > > more readable, it is in fact not as you have no way of knowing whether > > > the allocation is correct or not by looking at the line. So for > > > spotting allocation errors with grep, the shorter form is better (and > > > arguably less error-prone). > > > > Huh??? How do you use grep to find something of that sort? > > To find candidates, something like: > > grep "kmalloc(sizeof([^*]" -r drivers/ | grep -v "sizeof(struct" > > And then use my eyes to find real bugs.
"grep for kmallocs that do not have _either_ form and look for bugs among them" is hardly usable as an argument in favour of one of them... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |