From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6336543746979528704 X-Received: by 10.159.48.84 with SMTP id i20mr4531069uab.6.1475404092281; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:28:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.36.85 with SMTP id p79ls2898634ota.25.gmail; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.34.133 with SMTP id y5mr937895ota.28.1475404091748; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ua1si1792199pac.1.2016.10.02.03.28.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gregkh@linuxfoundation.org designates 140.211.169.12 as permitted sender) client-ip=140.211.169.12; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gregkh@linuxfoundation.org designates 140.211.169.12 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (smb-adpcdg2-02.hotspot.hub-one.net [213.174.99.136]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14AB471; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 10:28:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 12:28:17 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Julia Lawall Cc: Rehas Sachdeva , outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com, Oleg Drokin , Andreas Dilger , James Simmons Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: lustre: Constify kernel_param_ops structures Message-ID: <20161002102817.GA18602@kroah.com> References: <20161001170549.GA2965@toblerone> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 07:13:16PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Rehas Sachdeva wrote: > > > Check for structs which can are not modified and hence can be declared as > > const. Done using Coccinelle: > > "can are" -> "are" > > This merits a little more discussion, though. I have the impression that > these structures are used via the module_param macro. It would be useful > to look at the expansion of the macros and see what exactly is going on. Based on other uses of this structure in the kernel, I think this is safe. But verification would be good... thanks, greg k-h