[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091205142729.GC9482@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:27:29 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/31] Constify struct address_space_operations for
2.6.32 v1
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 01:36:56AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 11:08:09PM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> >> - int (*writepage)(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc);
> >> + int (* const writepage)(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc);
> >
> > Umm. What effect does this have?
> > What changes as a result of this patch?
>
> My idea was that since all variables of this type are const, we might
> as well have the compiler enforce it for the future if you think that
> these fields should not be writable at all.
The compiler does already enforce it. We do it like this:
struct address_space {
const struct address_space_operations *a_ops; /* methods */
}
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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