linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] mm/shmem: add `const` to lots of pointer parameters

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+-A6EoBnJhYkgX3Ktuivo2hpDZtbCKPfcmR_SNsvPQ02g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 10:01:16 +0200
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, 
	yuanchu@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, 
	vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, vishal.moola@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] mm/shmem: add `const` to lots of pointer parameters

On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 9:44 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 08:12:12AM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > For improved const-correctness.
>
> This is not an acceptable commit message, you need to explain what you're doing
> here.
>
> I'm thinking that review will be the same for each...
>
> For instance, reference the fact you're starting with functions at the bottom of
> the call graph,

My 00/12 already describes that adding "const" to mm addresses the
lowest level so higher levels (outside the scope of this patch set)
are able to constify their APIs.

Other than that, there is exactly one dependency between the patches,
and that is documented in the commit message of 06/12. The rest has no
"bottom" or "top" that I could describe. All other patches are
standalone.

> and mention which functions you're changing.

So you want to have a list of function names in the commit message?
Maybe I'll write a Perl one-liner to extract that from the diff, but
.... will that really be helpful? To me, it looks like noise in a
patch set as trivial as this one.