Re: [GIT PULL] treewide conversion to sizeof_member() for v5.5-rc1

[joe]

On 2019-12-08 17:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> maybe it's
> the 13-year old in me, but "sizeof_member()" just makes me go "that's
> puerile.

The 13 year old in you could grow up one day.  Most 13 year olds don't 
even know that word btw.

> I _can_ see why we'd want to standardize on one of the tree versions
> we have, but I can't really see the problem with the existing #define
> that we have, and that is used (admittedly not all that much):
> sizeof_field()

Call it what the standard calls it.