[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <op.vt8hr5j73l0zgt@mnazarewicz-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:20:19 +0200
From: "Michal Nazarewicz" <mina86@...a86.com>
To: "Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Artem Bityutskiy" <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc: "Phil Carmody" <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] mm: make read-only accessors take const pointer
parameters
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:28:37 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
wrote:
> I think it is good when small core functions like this are strict and
> use 'const' whenever possible, even though 'const' is so imperfect in C.
>
> Let me give an example from my own experience. I was writing code which
> was using the kernel RB trees, and I was trying to be strict and use
> 'const' whenever possible. But because the core functions like 'rb_next'
> do not have 'const' modifier, I could not use const in many many places
> of my code, because gcc was yelling. And I was not very enthusiastic to
> touch the RB-tree code that time.
The problem is that you end up with two sets of functions (one taking const
another taking non-const), a bunch of macros or a function that takes const
but returns non-const. If we settle on anything I would probably vote for
the last option but the all are far from ideal.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@...gle.com>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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