On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 00:38 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > There are valid reasons for > > malloc(sizeof(struct S)) > > form: > > * struct S acts as an anchor for ctags quickly reminding which type is > in focus > > * argument re changing name prevents bugs is semi bogus: > such changes are rare, > "void *" cast gives both forms equal opportunity to be screwed up > > * proper way to fix those rare misallocation bugs (which indeed happened) > is type safe allocation macros (see tmalloc from Samba). > > However amount of disruption will be so high so it may never be done. > > * ratio of allocation styles is ~6400:12000 which is about 1:2 > so the amount of churn to maintain this rule is pretty high in theory. > > The winning move is to not play and not encourage people send trivial stuff. > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]> > --- > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 10 ---------- > 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-) > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > @@ -808,16 +808,6 @@ kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kmalloc_array(), kcalloc(), > vmalloc(), and > vzalloc(). Please refer to the API documentation for further information > about them. > > -The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following: > - > -.. code-block:: c > - > - 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. > - > Casting the return value which is a void pointer is redundant. The conversion > from void pointer to any other pointer type is guaranteed by the C > programming > language.
Thanks. I agree with this deletion.
