Re: [PATCH v4 04/28] range: Add range_overlaps()

Andy Shevchenko
2024-10-09T16:04:50Z

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 05:36:42PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 05:45:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 06:10:32PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 06:16:10PM -0500, Ira Weiny wrote:

...

> > > > +static inline bool range_overlaps(struct range *r1, struct range *r2)
> > >
> > > I've noticed only now, you can constify the arguments, but this applise
> > > to other range_* functions so that can be done later in one go.
> >
> > Frankly you may add the same to each new API being added to the file and
> > the "one go" will never happen.
>
> Yeah, but it's a minor issue for a 28 patchset, I don't know if there
> are some other major things still to do so that a v5 is expected.

At least seems printf() changes have to be amended, so I think v5 is
warranted anyway.

> If anybody is interested, reviewing APIs and interfaces with focus on
> some data structure and const is relatively easy, compile test is
> typically enough.

Except the cases where a const pointer has to be passed thru non-const
(or integer) field in a data structure. Tons of the existing examples is
ID tables that wanted to have kernel_ulong_t instead of const void * in
driver data field.

> The hard part is to find the missing ones. There's no
> compiler aid thad I'd know of (-Wsuggest-attribute=const is not for
> parameters), so it's been reading a file top-down for me.

Yeah...

> > So, I support your first part with
> > constifying, but I think it would be rather done now to start that "one
> > go" to happen.
>
> Agreed, one patch on top is probably the least intrusive way.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko