linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] pagevec.h: add `const` to pointer parameters of getter functions

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: <CAKPOu+_TA3t=wbDS2mWp=WDy171YQqS6kR7AmSnpNpGn8cwnyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 16:12:04 +0200
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pagevec.h: add `const` to pointer parameters of getter functions

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 3:23 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> Note that your Cc list is still not according to MAINTAINERS:

I did, but I did this on 6.15... but master has significant additions
to the MAINTAINERS file.

> Assuming you don't intend to stop here, a series with multiple patches logically
> gradually expanding the const scope would be better than sending a single patch?

Yes, but that would mean more work, which I'm certainly willing to do,
but only if I'm confident the patches are going to be accepted. So
this tiny patch is a trial.
In v1, Lorenzo had expressed general objections to merging
const-correctness patches.
I don't want to waste time with something that's going to be rejected
anyway. I've been there so often, so often has there been one guy who
just rejects my work, after similar patches (by others) had been
merged.