From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net, bhumirks@gmail.com,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] constify nf_hook_ops structures
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 09:16:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170729091618.GF28392@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707291049370.2002@hadrien>
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017, Florian Westphal wrote:
>
> > Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> > > The nf_hook_ops structure is only passed as the second argument to
> > > nf_register_net_hook or nf_unregister_net_hook, both of which are
> > > declared as const. Thus the nf_hook_ops structure itself can be
> > > const.
> >
> > Right, also see
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/793767/
> >
> > This series misses most of them (all arrays perhaps)?
>
> Yes, my rule doesn't look for arrays. I guess they are all done already
> anyway?
I think so (the patch is not yet applied though).
From a quick glance I don't see why we can't e.g. constify
nf_conntrack_l3/4_proto too. It is not going to be as simple
as just placing const everywhere, but I see no requirement for
having these writeable.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net, bhumirks@gmail.com,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] constify nf_hook_ops structures
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:16:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170729091618.GF28392@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707291049370.2002@hadrien>
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017, Florian Westphal wrote:
>
> > Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> > > The nf_hook_ops structure is only passed as the second argument to
> > > nf_register_net_hook or nf_unregister_net_hook, both of which are
> > > declared as const. Thus the nf_hook_ops structure itself can be
> > > const.
> >
> > Right, also see
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/793767/
> >
> > This series misses most of them (all arrays perhaps)?
>
> Yes, my rule doesn't look for arrays. I guess they are all done already
> anyway?
I think so (the patch is not yet applied though).
>From a quick glance I don't see why we can't e.g. constify
nf_conntrack_l3/4_proto too. It is not going to be as simple
as just placing const everywhere, but I see no requirement for
having these writeable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-29 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-29 6:40 [PATCH 0/2] constify nf_hook_ops structures Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 6:40 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 6:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] decnet: dn_rtmsg: " Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 6:40 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 6:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: ipt_CLUSTERIP: " Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 6:40 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 8:44 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Florian Westphal
2017-07-29 8:44 ` Florian Westphal
2017-07-29 8:50 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 8:50 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 9:16 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2017-07-29 9:16 ` Florian Westphal
2017-07-29 9:21 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 9:21 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 9:41 ` Florian Westphal
2017-07-29 9:41 ` Florian Westphal
2017-07-29 9:56 ` Julia Lawall
2017-07-29 9:56 ` Julia Lawall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170729091618.GF28392@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=bhumirks@gmail.com \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.