From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Finn Thain Subject: Re: Writable sys_call_table (was: Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68k: Merge mmu and non-mmu versions of sys_call_table) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:31:19 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: References: <201104181649.31492.arnd@arndb.de> <201104190948.36517.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vm4.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.149]:48688 "EHLO vps4.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752079Ab1DSPbG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:31:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Geert Uytterhoeven , Greg Ungerer , Gavin Lambert , uClinux development list , Philippe De Muyter , Linux/m68k , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Finn Thain writes: > > > Wouldn't that require const void * const sys_call_table[] ? > > No, the right signature would be void (*const sys_call_table[])(void) > since this is an array of function pointers. Right. I mis-parsed the definition as a pointer to an array... Sorry about the noise. Finn > > Andreas. > >