Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:52:39 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] test-hexdump.c: Fix initconst confusion |
| |
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 03:35:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > --- a/lib/test-hexdump.c > > +++ b/lib/test-hexdump.c > > @@ -18,26 +18,26 @@ static const unsigned char data_b[] = { > > > > static const unsigned char data_a[] = ".2.{....p..$}.4...1.....L...C..."; > > > > -static const char *test_data_1_le[] __initconst = { > > +static const char * const test_data_1_le[] __initconst = { > > const char * const __initconst
This one didn't cause any warnings elsewhere.
> > > "be", "32", "db", "7b", "0a", "18", "93", "b2", > > "70", "ba", "c4", "24", "7d", "83", "34", "9b", > > "a6", "9c", "31", "ad", "9c", "0f", "ac", "e9", > > "4c", "d1", "19", "99", "43", "b1", "af", "0c", > > }; > > > > +static const char *test_data_2_le[] __initdata = { > > +static const char *test_data_4_le[] __initdata = { > > +static const char *test_data_8_le[] __initdata = { > > const char * __initdata > > Why is test_data_1_le[] different? > > Can we make them all "const char * const __initconst"? That would make > checkpatch happy ;)
I tried it, but it would have needed a lot more changes to shut up warnings later in the code. This was the least intrusive.
checkpatch is a bit stupid about this, but then C declarations are difficult to parse...
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
| |