Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for 2.6.32-git-053fe57ac v2

[Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com>]

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