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

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:25:26 +0100
Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 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?

the ops stuct instantiation itself should be const.
the members not so much; that makes no sense.



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/