linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space

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: <4B25E47C.1010803@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:08:44 +0100
From:	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
CC:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for 2.6.32-git-053fe57ac
 v2

Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:33:27AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
>> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:59:08AM +0100, re.emese@...il.com wrote:
>>>> The following patch series attempts to constify several structures
>>>> that hold function pointers. This is only the initial batch, there
>>>> are about over 150 candidate structures, some of which can be
>>>> constified as well, I plan to submit them in the future.
>>> What a complete waste of time.  Until you respond to Al's:
>> I did: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/5/140
>>
>> For even more discussion see: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/6/111
>>
> Since you seem to have both the interest and abundance of spare time
> for working on this, have you considered just doing this in sparse? Al
> mentioned it here:
> 
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/8/511
> 
> which you don't seem to have replied to.

Please see my thoughts on sparse and related topics:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/10/283

> Until such a consensus is reached one way or the other, please refrain
> from sending hundreds of patches -- one or two are sufficient for showing
> what you want to do until folks are on board with it, as is the typical
> nature of mechanical changes.

I think there is consensus to constify ops variables as much as
possible (e.g., Alexey's similar patches).

The discussions in these threads were about constifying the ops structure
fields themselves and I already explained why they are useful, see the
above link and this one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/8/492
--
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/