Re: [PATCH 0/1] Constify struct address_space_operations for 2.6.32-git-053fe57ac v2

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Mon 2009-12-14 14:17:57, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:25:26 +0100
> Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon 2009-12-14 08:00:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:26:56 +0100
> > > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > Until such a consensus is reached one way or the other, please
> > > > > > refrain from sending hundreds of patches -- one or two are
> > > > > > sufficient for showing what you want to do until folks are on
> > > > > > board with it, as is the typical nature of mechanical changes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think there is consensus to constify ops variables as much as
> > > > > possible (e.g., Alexey's similar patches).
> > > > 
> > > > No such consensus exists. It is very clear from the patch
> > > > reactions.
> > > 
> > > I for one am not opposed to using const where we could be using
> > > const.
> > 
> > I certainly object "constify ops... as much as possible". If it
> > uglifies the code, it should not be done. If it is as simple as adding
> > const to few lines, its probably ok.
> > 
> > But .... the patch contained huge load of 
> > 
> > -	int (* resume)()
> > +	int (* const resume)()
> > 
> > What is that?
> 
> the ops stuct instantiation itself should be const.
> the members not so much; that makes no sense.

I thought so; but that was half of the patches I saw, therefore
complains...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html