[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091205041507.GA24885@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:15:07 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
Cc: lenb@...nel.org, astarikovskiy@...e.de, mchehab@...radead.org,
linville@...driver.com, miklos@...redi.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com,
avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/31] Constify struct file_operations for 2.6.32 v1
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:50:23AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 01:02:59AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> >> -static struct file_operations ptmx_fops;
> >> +static const struct file_operations ptmx_fops = {
> >> + .llseek = no_llseek,
> >> + .read = tty_read,
> >> + .write = tty_write,
> >> + .poll = tty_poll,
> >> + .unlocked_ioctl = tty_ioctl,
> >> + .compat_ioctl = tty_compat_ioctl,
> >> + .open = ptmx_open,
> >> + .release = tty_release,
> >> + .fasync = tty_fasync,
> >> +};
> >
> > You just made these functions all global, for no real good reason. Why
> > did you do this?
>
> I think this is the only way to make ptmx_fops const, provided we want to.
Why do we want to?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists