[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081215092143.GF7593@shadowen.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:21:43 +0000
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org, arjan@...radead.org, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com, srostedt@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ftrace: graph of a single function
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 09:41:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:36:57 -0500
> > > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static struct seq_operations ftrace_graph_seq_ops = {
> > > > + .start = g_start,
> > > > + .next = g_next,
> > > > + .stop = g_stop,
> > > > + .show = g_show,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > This could be static I think.
> >
> > s/static/const/
> >
> > Damn damn damn damn!!!! I said to myself, I need to add const there and
> > still forgot :-(
>
> No need to get stressed up about such details - we need checkpatch help
> for this.
This seems similar to the file_operations check we added recently. As in
should we be suggesting that seq_operations should generally be const.
That seems consistant at least to my mind.
-apw
--
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