On 03/26/2013 02:16 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:46:28AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: >>> Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e, >>> isn't it ? >> >> I actually prefer "sizeof e" since sizeof is an operator, not a >> function. "sizeof(e)" looks just as silly as "return(e)" to me. > > Sizeof is used as an expression, return is not. > > They have different precedence rules: > return e + 1; // == return (e + 1) > vs > sizeof e + 1; // == sizeof(e) + 1 > > Or weirder: > return (void *)x; // OK > vs > sizeof (void *)x; // <-- compile error > > Coding sizeof as a function call frees the reader from having to > check/know the obscure precedence rules for sizeof.
Personally, I couldn't care less. But about 5 lines outside of the context of this patch in the same function is another use of that same expression. The real reason I used the form I did was to match the style of that other instance. I prepared a separate patch to convert both of them to the checkpatch preferred style until I saw Roland say he didn't want it. But what I wouldn't have done is submitted a patch that caused a single function to have two different styles within 8 lines of each other just because some nanny state nag script tells me too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
