On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini
> > <shyam.sa...@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
>
> 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.
The signature should be
sizeof_member(T, m)
it is proper English,
it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
it uses standard term (member, not field),
it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
