Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:08:44 +0100 | | From | Emese Revfy <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for 2.6.32-git-053fe57ac v2 |
| |
Paul Mundt wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:33:27AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote: >> Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:59:08AM +0100, re.emese@gmail.com wrote: >>>> The following patch series attempts to constify several structures >>>> that hold function pointers. This is only the initial batch, there >>>> are about over 150 candidate structures, some of which can be >>>> constified as well, I plan to submit them in the future. >>> What a complete waste of time. Until you respond to Al's: >> I did: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/5/140 >> >> For even more discussion see: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/6/111 >> > Since you seem to have both the interest and abundance of spare time > for working on this, have you considered just doing this in sparse? Al > mentioned it here: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/8/511 > > which you don't seem to have replied to.
Please see my thoughts on sparse and related topics: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/10/283
> 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).
The discussions in these threads were about constifying the ops structure fields themselves and I already explained why they are useful, see the above link and this one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/8/492 -- Emese
|  |