linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:12:20 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for
	2.6.32-git-053fe57ac v2

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:00:49AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:26:56 +0100

> I for one am not opposed to using const where we could be using const.
> It's a fundamental language feature, that helps the compiler and
> developer. Yes there is sparse, and no, almost nobody uses that.
 
And as just about any language feature it can be used to make the thing
less readable.

Note that marking a pointer to method table as pointer to const is just fine;
nobody AFAICS has any problems with that.  It's "let's make pointers to
methods themselves const" that gets flamed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/