On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:56:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro
> > that nobody really had issues with?
>
> That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > Please pull this mostly mechanical treewide conversion to the single and
> > more accurately named sizeof_member() macro for the end of v5.4-rc1. This
> > replaces 3 macros
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:06:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> (a) why didn't this use the already existing and well-named macro
> that nobody really had issues with?
That was suggested, but other folks wanted the more accurate "member"
instead of "field" since a treewide change was happening
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Please pull this mostly mechanical treewide conversion to the single and
> more accurately named sizeof_member() macro for the end of v5.4-rc1. This
> replaces 3 macros of the same behavior (FIELD_SIZEOF(), SIZEOF_FIELD(),
> and
Hi Linus,
Please pull this mostly mechanical treewide conversion to the single and
more accurately named sizeof_member() macro for the end of v5.4-rc1. This
replaces 3 macros of the same behavior (FIELD_SIZEOF(), SIZEOF_FIELD(),
and sizeof_field()). The last patch in the series has a script in
5 matches
Mail list logo