[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1447193832.2701.102.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:17:12 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
linux-geode@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] video: constify geode ops structures
On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 01:02 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:49:29PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Is there a warning/info message produced by gcc and the
> > plug-in when a non-const declaration is converted to
> > const because of this attribute?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. What would the warning say?
Perhaps something like:
declaration of struct <foo> converted to const by __attribute__((do_const))
> We'll hopefully automatically make over 3000 structs const. I
> understand warning that people should make structs const when possible
> but I don't understand why we would want to remove auto consting?
I'm not suggesting removing the attribute.
It seems sensible enough.
I just think the plug-in should at least optionally
note the instances when non-const declarations are
converted to const.
> Putting __do_const in the .h file is basically the same as marking
> every struct of that type as const in the .c file.
Not for a reader of the code that doesn't first
inspect the header files.
--
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