linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] hwmon: mark const init data with __initconst instead of _

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]

Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:54:42 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] hwmon: mark const init data with __initconst
 instead of __initdata

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 04:04:55PM -0400, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> As long as there is no other non-const variable marked __initdata in the
> same compilation unit it doesn't hurt. If there were one however
> compilation would fail with
> 
> 	error: $variablename causes a section type conflict
> 
> because a section containing const variables is marked read only and so
> cannot contain non-const variables.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
> Cc: lm-sensors@...sensors.org
> ---
> changes since (implicit) v1:
>  - drop wrong changes to drivers/hwmon/w83627hf.c
> 
>  drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c |   18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> index a25350c..54922ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/w83627ehf.c
> @@ -2619,15 +2619,15 @@ static struct platform_driver w83627ehf_driver = {
>  static int __init w83627ehf_find(int sioaddr, unsigned short *addr,
>  				 struct w83627ehf_sio_data *sio_data)
>  {
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627EHF[] = "W83627EHF";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627EHG[] = "W83627EHG";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627DHG[] = "W83627DHG";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627DHG_P[] = "W83627DHG-P";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83627UHG[] = "W83627UHG";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83667HG[] = "W83667HG";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_W83667HG_B[] = "W83667HG-B";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_NCT6775[] = "NCT6775F";
> -	static const char __initdata sio_name_NCT6776[] = "NCT6776F";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83627EHF[] __initconst = "W83627EHF";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83627EHG[] __initconst = "W83627EHG";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83627DHG[] __initconst = "W83627DHG";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83627DHG_P[] __initconst = "W83627DHG-P";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83627UHG[] __initconst = "W83627UHG";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83667HG[] __initconst = "W83667HG";
> +	static const char sio_name_W83667HG_B[] __initconst = "W83667HG-B";
> +	static const char sio_name_NCT6775[] __initconst = "NCT6775F";
> +	static const char sio_name_NCT6776[] __initconst = "NCT6776F";
>  
Applied.

Just wondering: Why not the following ?

> +	static const char __initconst sio_name_NCT6776[] = "NCT6776F";

It does not make a difference in the generated code, and appears to be
less confusing, at least to me.

Thanks,
Guenter
--
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/