On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:00:10PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:

On Jun 11, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:08:36 +0530 Shyam Saini [off-list ref] 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,