linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: remove duplicate const qualifier

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:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:58:09 +0100
From:	Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom@...tec.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	<spear-devel@...t.st.com>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...com>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
	Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: remove duplicate const qualifier

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 01:38:18PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Maybe say you you found it (llvm, sparse, coccinelle?), and why this
> is causing a problem for anyone. If it's just unnecessary but not
> harmful, I'd probably ignore the patch.

$ grep -rE '(^|\W)const(\s+\w+)+\s+const\s'

I just happened to notice some unnecessary const in our internal code,
so I grep'ed for it in a couple big OSS projects to see how common it
was. Since I found only a few, I decided to remove them, but like I said
it just gets ignored by all the compilers I know, so there's absolutely
no harm in leaving this dead code around.


> That's fine. Having multiple patches here is slightly better than just
> one, but I'd also be fine with just taking the large patch because it
> is an identical trivial change in multiple files.

So, do you want me to split them up? I'd prefer not having to (slightly
less work for me :P), but it doesn't really make much of a difference
either way.

Cheers