All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, mayhs11saini@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:33:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201907020931.2170BAB@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3b83ba7f9b003dd4fb9cad885461ce93165dc04.camel@perches.com>

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 17:25 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> > > 
> > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> > > than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> > > 
> > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.
> > 
> > The signature should be
> > 
> > 	sizeof_member(T, m)
> > 
> > it is proper English,
> > it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
> > it uses standard term (member, not field),
> > it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,
> 
> yes please.
> 
> Also, a simple script conversion applied
> immediately after an rc1 might be easiest
> rather than individual patches.

This seems reasonable to me. I think the patch steps would be:

1) implement sizeof_member(T, m) as a stand-alone macro
2) do a scripted replacement of all identical macros.
3) remove all the identical macros.

Step 2 can be a patch that includes the script used to do the
replacement. That way Linus can choose to just run the script instead of
taking the patch.

-- 
Kees Cook

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, mayhs11saini@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:33:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201907020931.2170BAB@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3b83ba7f9b003dd4fb9cad885461ce93165dc04.camel@perches.com>

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 17:25 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> > > 
> > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> > > than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> > > 
> > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.
> > 
> > The signature should be
> > 
> > 	sizeof_member(T, m)
> > 
> > it is proper English,
> > it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
> > it uses standard term (member, not field),
> > it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,
> 
> yes please.
> 
> Also, a simple script conversion applied
> immediately after an rc1 might be easiest
> rather than individual patches.

This seems reasonable to me. I think the patch steps would be:

1) implement sizeof_member(T, m) as a stand-alone macro
2) do a scripted replacement of all identical macros.
3) remove all the identical macros.

Step 2 can be a patch that includes the script used to do the
replacement. That way Linus can choose to just run the script instead of
taking the patch.

-- 
Kees Cook

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, devel@lists.orangefs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mayhs11saini@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:33:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201907020931.2170BAB@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3b83ba7f9b003dd4fb9cad885461ce93165dc04.camel@perches.com>

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 17:25 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> > > 
> > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> > > than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> > > 
> > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.
> > 
> > The signature should be
> > 
> > 	sizeof_member(T, m)
> > 
> > it is proper English,
> > it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
> > it uses standard term (member, not field),
> > it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,
> 
> yes please.
> 
> Also, a simple script conversion applied
> immediately after an rc1 might be easiest
> rather than individual patches.

This seems reasonable to me. I think the patch steps would be:

1) implement sizeof_member(T, m) as a stand-alone macro
2) do a scripted replacement of all identical macros.
3) remove all the identical macros.

Step 2 can be a patch that includes the script used to do the
replacement. That way Linus can choose to just run the script instead of
taking the patch.

-- 
Kees Cook

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, devel@lists.orangefs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mayhs11saini@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:33:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201907020931.2170BAB@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3b83ba7f9b003dd4fb9cad885461ce93165dc04.camel@perches.com>

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 17:25 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini <shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> > > I did a check, and FIELD_SIZEOF() is used about 350x, while sizeof_field()
> > > is about 30x, and SIZEOF_FIELD() is only about 5x.
> > > 
> > > That said, I'm much more in favour of "sizeof_field()" or "sizeof_member()"
> > > than FIELD_SIZEOF().  Not only does that better match "offsetof()", with
> > > which it is closely related, but is also closer to the original "sizeof()".
> > > 
> > > Since this is a rather trivial change, it can be split into a number of
> > > patches to get approval/landing via subsystem maintainers, and there is no
> > > huge urgency to remove the original macros until the users are gone.  It
> > > would make sense to remove SIZEOF_FIELD() and sizeof_field() quickly so
> > > they don't gain more users, and the remaining FIELD_SIZEOF() users can be
> > > whittled away as the patches come through the maintainer trees.
> > 
> > The signature should be
> > 
> > 	sizeof_member(T, m)
> > 
> > it is proper English,
> > it is lowercase, so is easier to type,
> > it uses standard term (member, not field),
> > it blends in with standard "sizeof" operator,
> 
> yes please.
> 
> Also, a simple script conversion applied
> immediately after an rc1 might be easiest
> rather than individual patches.

This seems reasonable to me. I think the patch steps would be:

1) implement sizeof_member(T, m) as a stand-alone macro
2) do a scripted replacement of all identical macros.
3) remove all the identical macros.

Step 2 can be a patch that includes the script used to do the
replacement. That way Linus can choose to just run the script instead of
taking the patch.

-- 
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-03  0:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-11 19:38 [PATCH V2] include: linux: Regularise the use of FIELD_SIZEOF macro Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 19:50 ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 19:38 ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 20:46 ` Kees Cook
2019-06-11 20:46   ` Kees Cook
2019-06-11 20:46   ` Kees Cook
2019-06-11 21:05   ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:17     ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:05     ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:05     ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-11 20:48   ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-11 20:48   ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-11 21:00   ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-11 21:00     ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-11 21:00     ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-11 21:09     ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-11 21:09       ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-11 21:09       ` Andrew Morton
2019-06-11 21:27       ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:39         ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:27         ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:27         ` Shyam Saini
2019-06-11 21:28       ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-11 21:28         ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-11 21:28         ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-29 14:25     ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-06-29 14:25       ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-06-29 14:25       ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-06-29 16:45       ` Joe Perches
2019-06-29 16:45         ` Joe Perches
2019-06-29 16:45         ` Joe Perches
2019-06-29 16:45         ` Joe Perches
2019-06-29 16:45         ` Joe Perches
2019-07-02 16:33         ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-07-02 16:33           ` Kees Cook
2019-07-02 16:33           ` Kees Cook
2019-07-02 16:33           ` Kees Cook
2019-06-12  0:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-12  0:05   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-12  0:05   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-12  0:05   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-13  0:31 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2019-06-13  2:15 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2019-06-14 14:36 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201907020931.2170BAB@keescook \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=devel@lists.orangefs.org \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mayhs11saini@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shyam.saini@amarulasolutions.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.