From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] constify pci_error_handlers structures Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1502516674-8918-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <20170812074451.GA3589@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170812074451.GA3589@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, bhumirks@gmail.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 12 Aug 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 07:44:28AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > These pci_error_handlers structures are only stored in the err_handler > > field of a pci_driver structure, and this field is declared as const. Thus > > the pci_error_handlers structures can be const too. > > > > Done with the help of Coccinelle. > > If you're doing a scripted conversion of the pci_error_handlers > structured I'd much rather see that structure killed off and folded > into the pci_driver one. OK, sure. So to be precise, you want the fields error_detected, mmio_enabled, etc to be added as new fields to the pci_driver structure? They both have a resume field, though. What should the pci_error_handlers resume function be renamed to? Would resume_after_error be too much? julia