Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] vsprintf: Consistent %pK handling for kptr_restrict == 0

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 14:05 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2018-04-07 17:08:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:46 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2018-04-05 16:04:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:

> > > > >  /* Maps a pointer to a 32 bit unique identifier. */
> > > > > -static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr,
> > > > > struct
> > > > > printf_spec spec)
> > > > > +static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end,
> > > > > +		       const void *ptr, struct printf_spec
> > > > > spec)
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think this change belongs to the patch.
> > > 
> > > The const should have been there from the beginning. I have found
> > > it
> > > because this patch added a call to ptr_to_id() which had the const
> > > and compiler warned about cast problems.
> > 
> > So, why not to do a separate patch with clear intention?
> 
> If you insist I could do it as separate patch.

I believe, that logical changes are easier to review and understand when
it's not mixed with other changes.

> > > IMHO, it is rather cosmetic change.
> > > From my experience I'm afraid of cosmetic changes in the patches
> > > which
> > 
> > might focus out attention on real fix.
> 
> I would understand this if it was part of a large patch that changed
> complex chain of functions. But this patch touched 5 lines. The const
> is added into static function that is almost leaf and was called
> only from a single location.

But it's up to you.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy