lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/31] Constify struct file_operations for 2.6.32 v1
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 01:45:02AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > 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
> >
> Ok, I removed the affected hunks.
>
> From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com>
>
> Constify struct file_operations with some exceptions.

Now please break this patch (and your others) out into "one subsystem at
a time" type thing so it will have a chance at being applied.

thanks,

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-07 16:17    [W:0.078 / U:6.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site