Re: [PATCH 0/4] __cpuinitconst and __devinitconst

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:25:54AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> The one thing that I'm not sure is really consistent yet wrt. the
> >> constification is that now you need to write e.g.
> >> 
> >> static const char __cpuinitcdata example[];
> >> 
> >> and (accidentally) omitting the 'const' (as it's really an apparently
> >> redundant thing now) as in
> >> 
> >> static char __cpuinitcdata example[];
> >> 
> >> will cause section type conflicts (at the compiler or linker level). I
> >> therefore think that the 'const' should really be part of the
> >> __{cpu,mem,dev}cdata definitions (requiring the attribute to be
> >> placed properly, namely placement at the end of a declaration as
> >> is possible with __{cpu,mem,dev}initdata is then not an option here).
> >
> >I need to play a little with this before I make up my mind.
> >I do not like the concpet of hiding the const too much - it will
> >be non-obvious why the compiler complains if the only thing that
> >distingush const from non-const is a small capital 'c' within
> >__cpucinitdata (versus __cpuinitdata).
> 
> That's the main reason I preferred __{cpu,mem,dev}initconst, as it
> makes it more obvious that the declared thing is 'const'.

I will try with these names - thanks (Saw Adrian's comment but
agree it is too long).

I will likely not have anything ready until wednesday so feel 
free to beat me.

	Sam