[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702112136090.3734@nanos>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:36:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
cc: Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: add __ro_after_init to cyclecounter
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 11 February 2017 at 19:20, Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com> wrote:
> > The object cyclecounter of type cyclecounter is not getting modified
> > after getting initialized by arch_counter_register. Apart from
> > initialization in arch_counter_register it is also passed as an argument
> > to the function timecounter_init but this argument is of type const.
> > Therefore, add __ro_after_init to its declaration.
> >
>
> I think adding __ro_after_init is fine if this struct is never
> modified after init. But the reference in the commit log to the
> constness of the timecounter_init() argument makes no sense: that
> only means timecounter_init() will not modify the object, which allows
> pointers to const objects to be passed to it as well. The opposite is
> not true, though: there is no requirement whatsoever that objects
> passed into const pointer arguments should be const themselves.
Indeed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists