Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1552422
| From | Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch |
| Date | 2017-01-06 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sWqqe-25X-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sW5lL-4mv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sWkkO-6b3-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <sWq6R-1FB-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <sWqgy-217-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 01/06/17 09:02, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:52:07PM +0000, Junichi Nomura wrote: >>>> + p = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ucode_patch), GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> Perhaps sizeof(*p) ? >> >> Yeah, that might be preferred. > > No, those things are never preferred because > > sizeof(struct <type>) > > tells you exactly the size of what kind of object you're getting vs > > sizeof(*p) > > which tells you you're getting the size of what p points to. > > Now you have to go look at p and what type it is. In the current case, p > is defined not far away from the use site but in a larger function, you > most likely need to eyeball up to its type when reading the code. Which > makes the whole thing less readable. Personally I have same opinion as yours. :) But according to Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, it seems "sizeof(*p)" is preferred style and the reason there makes some sense. Quote from coding-style.rst: > The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following: > > p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...); > > The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and > introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed > but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not. I'm fine with either way. -- Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation / NEC Solution Innovators, Ltd.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> - 2017-01-05 02:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2017-01-05 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> - 2017-01-06 01:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2017-01-06 01:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com> - 2017-01-06 01:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2017-01-06 12:00 +0100
[tip:x86/urgent] x86/microcode/intel: Fix allocation size of struct ucode_patch tip-bot for Junichi Nomura <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-01-09 23:20 +0100
csiph-web