From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] can: fix handling of unmodifiable configuration options Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:24:27 +0200 Message-ID: <56FBC57B.3060204@hartkopp.net> References: <1458587901-7565-1-git-send-email-socketcan@hartkopp.net> <56F80231.1010005@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.218]:22903 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752643AbcC3MYf (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:24:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <56F80231.1010005@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marc Kleine-Budde , linux-can@vger.kernel.org Cc: ramesh.shanmugasundaram@bp.renesas.com On 03/27/2016 05:54 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 03/21/2016 08:18 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> +static int can_validate(struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[]) >> +{ >> + u32 is_can_fd = 0; > ^^^ > I've made this bool. ok >> +/* helper to define static CAN controller features at device creation time */ >> +static inline void can_set_static_ctrlmode(struct net_device *dev, >> + const u32 static_mode) > ^^^^^ > > I've removed the const here. ok But doesn't it make sense to indicate that we do not change the given parameter in some way? > Applied with these changes to can-next. Thanks! Oliver