On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:02:16AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 15:45 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:11:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Wei Tang <tang...@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote: > [] > > > > WARNING: sizeof sig->rlim should be sizeof(sig->rlim) > [] > > > If anyone feels strongly about accepting such patches, then the right > > > solution is > > > to create a Coccinelle semantic patch to run over the whole kernel and > > > get over > > > with the churn once and for all. > > > > That, or a single patch taking that piece of idiocy out of checkpatch.pl... > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/11/103
Umm... Matter of taste, really - and I don't quite agree about "should think of sizeof() as a function, not as some ass-backwards special case C parsing rule that is subtle as hell". I've seen enough folks getting confused about treatment of arrays; confusion between sizeof uses and function calls often contributed to that.
