Re: RFC: kernel coding style: prefer array to &array[0] ?

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> It seems most in-kernel uses are 'array' rather than '&array[0]'
> 
> Most of the time, using array is simpler to read than &array[0].
> 
> Exceptions exists when addresses for consecutive members are
> used like func(&array[0], &array[1]);
> 
> Should this preference be put into checkpatch and/or CodingStyle?

&array[0] looks complicated to me.

julia


> Here's a possible checkpatch --strict addition
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index 90e1edc..362a9d8 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -5492,6 +5492,12 @@ sub process {
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> +# check for address of array[0] (not '&& array[0]' or &array[0].member)
> +		if ($sline =~ /[^\&]&\s*($Ident\s*(?:(?:\-\>|\.)\s*$Ident\s*)*)\s*\[\s*0\s*\]\s*(?!\[|\.|\-\>)/) {
> +			CHK("ADDRESSOF_ARRAY",
> +			    "Using addressof array '$1' index [0] may be simpler as '$1'\n" . $herecurr);
> +		}
> +
>  # check for semaphores initialized locked
>  		if ($line =~ /^.\s*sema_init.+,\W?0\W?\)/) {
>  			WARN("CONSIDER_COMPLETION",
> 
> 
>