[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4798E5E1.9050408@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:24:17 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [XFRM]: constify 'struct xfrm_type'
Joe Perches a écrit :
> On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 19:23 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Having const data is nice because moving them from .data to .rodata,
>> but what would be practical gains to use a const pointer ???
>
> const data is good, using pointers to const data is good.
Yes, this is what is done.
> using const pointers to const data is good.
const pointers are seldom used in linux kernel, because mostly useless.
> using const pointers to data not specified as const is not so good.
You misread the patch. I am not using const pointers at all, but const data.
>
> Here's what you are doing now.
>
> +static void xfrm_put_type(const struct xfrm_type *type)
> [...]
> + const struct xfrm_type *type;
>
Yes, this was the plan, I meant it.
I still dont understand what *you* want to do.
Doing :
int xfrm_unregister_type(const struct xfrm_type * const type, const unsigned
short family)
instead of :
int xfrm_unregister_type(const struct xfrm_type *type, unsigned short family)
buys nothing for the caller.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists