Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for2.6.32-git-053fe57ac v2

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2009-12-14 08:00:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:26:56 +0100
> Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > Until such a consensus is reached one way or the other, please
> > > > refrain from sending hundreds of patches -- one or two are
> > > > sufficient for showing what you want to do until folks are on
> > > > board with it, as is the typical nature of mechanical changes.
> > > 
> > > I think there is consensus to constify ops variables as much as
> > > possible (e.g., Alexey's similar patches).
> > 
> > No such consensus exists. It is very clear from the patch reactions.
> 
> I for one am not opposed to using const where we could be using
> const.

I certainly object "constify ops... as much as possible". If it
uglifies the code, it should not be done. If it is as simple as adding
const to few lines, its probably ok.

But .... the patch contained huge load of 

-	int (* resume)()
+	int (* const resume)()

What is that?

> Now, a 300 patch series to lkml is not the way to do this.
> First step is to make checkpatch.pl warn about new cases.
> Second step should be to convert all definitions, but using the "one
> patch per maintainer" rule, not "one patch per file" rule. Yes it's

The zeroth step is get one small series accepted. I'd suggest VFS for
a start.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/