linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5636a473-2a0a-4d25-95a4-1db48a1752ec@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 12:07:00 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@...temov.name>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
 hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
 vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, vishal.moola@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] mm/shmem: add `const` to lots of pointer
 parameters

On 01.09.25 12:00, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 11:53 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I have no time to argue about the basics of writing a patch
>> description. I even proposed a simple example of what we (multiple
>> reviewers) would expect as a bare minimum.
> 
> But Lorenzo Stoakes and Mike Rappoport wanted much more than that.

Sure, if it's not a simple "test" function as the one I commented on, it 
might make sense to explain more why it is okay.

> 
>> If you feel like you need other rules than everybody else here
> 
> What other rules? I get confused by different requirements by different people.
> 
> Quite contrary - I want the same rules as everybody else. For example,
> the same rules as Matthew Wilcox who already submitted similar patches
> (with similar commit messages) that were merged without pushing him
> around.

In my example I literally took the beginning of Willy's patch 
description and modified it, extending it by the const-correctnes.

And before I get seriously annoyed and behave differently than I usually 
would here on this list, like ever,

this is my suggestion for that one patch:

"Constify shmem related test functions for improved const-correctness."

and this is the beginning of Willy's patch

"Constify the flag tests ..."

And now I am wondering why on earth I am wasting my time here on 
something that trivial.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb