[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091206172526.GA17480@suse.de>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 09:25:26 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
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
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 02:47:44AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> 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.
Based on the patch, I would think it is not worth it.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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