linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pinctrl: intel: Constify struct intel

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: <20240903045706.GY1532424@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 07:57:06 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pinctrl: intel: Constify struct intel_pinctrl
 parameter

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 05:15:11PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> -static void __iomem *intel_get_padcfg(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl,
> +static void __iomem *intel_get_padcfg(const struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl,
>  				      unsigned int pin, unsigned int reg)

This is not good. You take const pointer but return non-const inside
that struct. I don't think we should "change" the constness this way.

All changes that take const pointer and return scalar are fine, though
(did not check all of them).