[PATCH 05/11] MIPS: constify sysrq_key_op

[PATCH 05/11] MIPS: constify sysrq_key_op

[Emil Velikov]

With earlier commits, the API no longer discards the const-ness of the
sysrq_key_op. As such we can add the notation.

Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
---
Please keep me in the CC list, as I'm not subscribed to the list.

IMHO it would be better it this gets merged this via the tty tree.
---
 arch/mips/kernel/sysrq.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/sysrq.c b/arch/mips/kernel/sysrq.c
index e5a2a6ab71ac..9c1a2019113b 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/sysrq.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/sysrq.c
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static void sysrq_handle_tlbdump(int key)
 #endif
 }
 
-static struct sysrq_key_op sysrq_tlbdump_op = {
+static const struct sysrq_key_op sysrq_tlbdump_op = {
 	.handler        = sysrq_handle_tlbdump,
 	.help_msg       = "show-tlbs(x)",
 	.action_msg     = "Show TLB entries",
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 05/11] MIPS: constify sysrq_key_op

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43:45PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> With earlier commits, the API no longer discards the const-ness of the
> sysrq_key_op. As such we can add the notation.
> 
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
> ---
> Please keep me in the CC list, as I'm not subscribed to the list.
> 
> IMHO it would be better it this gets merged this via the tty tree.
> ---
>  arch/mips/kernel/sysrq.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]