From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964824AbbJOCOc (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:14:32 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0027.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.27]:44258 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932913AbbJOCOb (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:14:31 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1567:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2559:2562:2731:2828:2895:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3622:3865:3866:3867:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:6119:6261:7974:10004:10400:10450:10455:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:19904:19999:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: alley69_270206fa68a5e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1613 Message-ID: <1444875266.2718.37.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: set return value to const char for some functions From: Joe Perches To: "Moore, Robert" Cc: LABBE Corentin , "Zheng, Lv" , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@acpica.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:14:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E37D9803BD@ORSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1444849635-14456-1-git-send-email-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E37D9803BD@ORSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 20:53 +0000, Moore, Robert wrote: > In ACPICA, we tend to be very careful concerning the "const" keyword in order to avoid a phenomenon known as "const pollution". > > That is not to say that we won't use const in some limited cases. Please describe the effects of "const pollution". Why isn't it useful to update the functions that don't modify function pointer arguments to const?