linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] constify struct attribute

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20080122221547.GA32588@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:15:47 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, tony.luck@...el.com,
	paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] constify struct attribute_group uses (against -mm)

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 01:31:21PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> .. as all consumers of it don't require it to be modifiable.
> 
> Unfortunately, due to the two-level constifications, this required
> touching quite many files, not all of which I am able to test - please
> bare with eventual mistakes or oversights.
> 
> The patch doesn't change all instances where 'const' could have been
> added as a result of the base structure changes, only where either the
> change has a real effect (the module loader doesn't enforce read-only
> section attributes at present, so only built-in files matter) or where
> compiler warnings would result otherwise.

Which -mm is this against?  Seems to not apply here :(

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/