Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:21:51 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for 2.6.32-git-053fe57ac v2 |
| |
On Mon 2009-12-14 14:17:57, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:25:26 +0100 > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > On Mon 2009-12-14 08:00:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:26:56 +0100 > > > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Until such a consensus is reached one way or the other, please > > > > > > refrain from sending hundreds of patches -- one or two are > > > > > > sufficient for showing what you want to do until folks are on > > > > > > board with it, as is the typical nature of mechanical changes. > > > > > > > > > > I think there is consensus to constify ops variables as much as > > > > > possible (e.g., Alexey's similar patches). > > > > > > > > No such consensus exists. It is very clear from the patch > > > > reactions. > > > > > > I for one am not opposed to using const where we could be using > > > const. > > > > I certainly object "constify ops... as much as possible". If it > > uglifies the code, it should not be done. If it is as simple as adding > > const to few lines, its probably ok. > > > > But .... the patch contained huge load of > > > > - int (* resume)() > > + int (* const resume)() > > > > What is that? > > the ops stuct instantiation itself should be const. > the members not so much; that makes no sense.
I thought so; but that was half of the patches I saw, therefore complains... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |