[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <478B38B2.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:25:54 +0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] __cpuinitconst and __devinitconst
>> The one thing that I'm not sure is really consistent yet wrt. the
>> constification is that now you need to write e.g.
>>
>> static const char __cpuinitcdata example[];
>>
>> and (accidentally) omitting the 'const' (as it's really an apparently
>> redundant thing now) as in
>>
>> static char __cpuinitcdata example[];
>>
>> will cause section type conflicts (at the compiler or linker level). I
>> therefore think that the 'const' should really be part of the
>> __{cpu,mem,dev}cdata definitions (requiring the attribute to be
>> placed properly, namely placement at the end of a declaration as
>> is possible with __{cpu,mem,dev}initdata is then not an option here).
>
>I need to play a little with this before I make up my mind.
>I do not like the concpet of hiding the const too much - it will
>be non-obvious why the compiler complains if the only thing that
>distingush const from non-const is a small capital 'c' within
>__cpucinitdata (versus __cpuinitdata).
That's the main reason I preferred __{cpu,mem,dev}initconst, as it
makes it more obvious that the declared thing is 'const'.
Jan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists