Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] mm: make read-only accessors take const pointer parameters | From | Artem Bityutskiy <> | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:44:25 +0300 |
| |
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 13:20 +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:28:37 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think it is good when small core functions like this are strict and > > use 'const' whenever possible, even though 'const' is so imperfect in C. > > > > Let me give an example from my own experience. I was writing code which > > was using the kernel RB trees, and I was trying to be strict and use > > 'const' whenever possible. But because the core functions like 'rb_next' > > do not have 'const' modifier, I could not use const in many many places > > of my code, because gcc was yelling. And I was not very enthusiastic to > > touch the RB-tree code that time. > > The problem is that you end up with two sets of functions (one taking const > another taking non-const), a bunch of macros or a function that takes const > but returns non-const. If we settle on anything I would probably vote for > the last option but the all are far from ideal.
I think it is fine to take const and return non-const. Yes, it is not beautiful, but we could live with this.
-- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
-- 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/
| |