Unified sizeof_member() Re-Proposed For Linux 5.5

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Unified sizeof_member() Re-Proposed For Linux 5.5

After not being merged for Linux 5.4, the new sizeof_member() macro as a unified means of calculating the size of a member of a struct has been volleyed for Linux 5.5 for possible inclusion on this last day of the merge window...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-5.5-Size-Of-Member

[microcode]

Why don't they just fix the name.

[timofonic]

Why don't they just fix the name.

I propose to change it to sizeof_genitals...

[milkylainen]

I propose to change it to sizeof_genitals...

I am offended! OMG!
On a side note. I'm betting this is exactly why Linus is stalling...

[Rexerex]

I don't get it why they don't just consistently use one of those three macros instead of come up with the fourth one.

[tildearrow]

...coming here expecting dirty minds, again.
I wasn't disappointed...

[perpetually high]

It's not the sizeof the struct that matters, it's what you do with it. (Or so I hear)

[cl333r]

It's not the sizeof the struct that matters, it's what you do with it. (Or so I hear)

Some say that the padding of a struct is more important than its length.

[CommunityMember]

On a side note. I'm betting this is exactly why Linus is stalling...

He said that explicitly with a recent LKML post ("the 13-year old in me").

What we seem to be arguing is not whether there should be one name (that seems to be a general agreement at this point), but what the rose should be called ("a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"). In the end the only person's opinion that matters is the decider (Linus), and he does not like member, regardless that the term is what is used on the C standard.

[pal666]

i wanted to mention my attitude to lowercase macros, but it seems offtopic here