Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:38:59 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit |
| |
On 10/05/2011 12:58 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 12:08 +0400, Glauber Costa a écrit : >> On 10/04/2011 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >>> 2) Could you add const qualifiers when possible to your pointers ? >> >> Well, I'll go over the patches again and see where I can add them. >> Any specific place site you're concerned about? > > Everywhere its possible : > > It helps reader to instantly knows if a function is about to change some > part of the object or only read it, without reading function body. Sure it does.
So, give me your opinion on this:
most of the acessors inside struct sock do not modify the pointers, but return an address of an element inside it (that can later on be modified by the caller.
I think it is fine for the purpose of clarity, but to avoid warnings we end up having to do stuff like this:
+#define CONSTCG(m) ((struct mem_cgroup *)(m)) +long *tcp_sysctl_mem(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{ + return CONSTCG(memcg)->tcp.tcp_prot_mem; +}
Is it acceptable? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |