linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 28/31] Constify struct super

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: <4B1BBE71.70305@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:23:45 +0100
From:	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/31] Constify struct super_operations for 2.6.32 v1

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> -   	struct inode *(*alloc_inode)(struct super_block *sb);
>> +   	struct inode *(* const alloc_inode)(struct super_block *sb);
> 
> Good rule is if adding const doesn't move object from one section
> to another, it isn't worth it.
> 
> I suggest we stick to it or risk another wave of jumbo patches.
> 
If all instances of a given ops structure are const and we would like to
preserve this policy for the future as well, then  it is very useful
to give future programmers a strong hint about this policy by making
the compiler complain about any violation attempts. Otherwise they may
very well write code that modifies such structures and we will have to
work extra to undo that (or change the policy but in that case it is
good to know why we have to do that).
--
Emese
--
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/