On 15/01/2019 11:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 15/01/2019 11:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>>>> Fix error usage to sizeof. It should not use sizeof to pointer. >>>>> >>>>> .... because? >>>>> >>>>> The commit message needs to explain what the potential issue could be >>>>> and why it doesn't matter in this case. >>>> I see the definition of pte_t may be more than sizeof(unsigned long). >>>> So I think sizeof(pte_t) is safer. >>> >>> What exactly is the difference between: >>> >>> pte_t *p; >>> >>> sizeof(*p) >>> >>> and >>> >>> sizeof(pte_t) >>> >>> and what is safer about the latter? >> >> Please note that the current code is using sizeof(p) instead of sizeof(*p). > > Ooops. That's wrong indeed, but we should not change it to sizeof(pte_t) > and change it to sizeof(*p) instead.
And that's what the patch does. Juergen
