linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: arm_scmi: Constify scmi_perf

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]

Message-ID: <20200907102551.3f7zwrmd3uqthaxs@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 15:55:51 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: arm_scmi: Constify scmi_perf_ops pointers

On 07-09-20, 11:22, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 01:04:50AM +0200, Rikard Falkeborn wrote:
> > The perf_ops are not modified through this pointer. Make them const to
> > indicate that. This is in preparation to make the scmi-ops pointers in
> > scmi_handle const.
> >
> 
> Your ack needed to take this as series via {arm-,}soc

Can I just pick the first patch and you do the rest ? Will it result
in any warnings at either end ?

-- 
viresh