[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B1B0D40.3040209@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:47:44 +0100
From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
CC: lenb@...nel.org, astarikovskiy@...e.de, mchehab@...radead.org,
linville@...driver.com, miklos@...redi.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com,
avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/31] Constify struct file_operations for 2.6.32 v1
Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:50:23AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
>> Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 01:02:59AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
>>>> -static struct file_operations ptmx_fops;
>>>> +static const struct file_operations ptmx_fops = {
>>>> + .llseek = no_llseek,
>>>> + .read = tty_read,
>>>> + .write = tty_write,
>>>> + .poll = tty_poll,
>>>> + .unlocked_ioctl = tty_ioctl,
>>>> + .compat_ioctl = tty_compat_ioctl,
>>>> + .open = ptmx_open,
>>>> + .release = tty_release,
>>>> + .fasync = tty_fasync,
>>>> +};
>>> You just made these functions all global, for no real good reason. Why
>>> did you do this?
>> I think this is the only way to make ptmx_fops const, provided we want to.
>
> Why do we want to?
Because I saw that checkpatch.pl itself tries to ensure the same I went
through the whole tree looking for non-const file_operations structures
and tried to make them const as best as I could. If you think making
ptmx_fops const is not worth the effort I will remove it from the patch.
--
Emese
--
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