From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754900AbbDHXwl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:52:41 -0400
Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:40152 "EHLO
	one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751431AbbDHXwk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:52:40 -0400
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:52:39 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] test-hexdump.c: Fix initconst confusion
Message-ID: <20150408235239.GU2366@two.firstfloor.org>
References: <1428498405-7019-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <1428498405-7019-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <20150408153554.65c87de78f1c2289483f67e8@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150408153554.65c87de78f1c2289483f67e8@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 03:35:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > --- a/lib/test-hexdump.c
> > +++ b/lib/test-hexdump.c
> > @@ -18,26 +18,26 @@ static const unsigned char data_b[] = {
> >  
> >  static const unsigned char data_a[] = ".2.{....p..$}.4...1.....L...C...";
> >  
> > -static const char *test_data_1_le[] __initconst = {
> > +static const char * const test_data_1_le[] __initconst = {
> 
> const char * const __initconst

This one didn't cause any warnings elsewhere.

> 
> >  	"be", "32", "db", "7b", "0a", "18", "93", "b2",
> >  	"70", "ba", "c4", "24", "7d", "83", "34", "9b",
> >  	"a6", "9c", "31", "ad", "9c", "0f", "ac", "e9",
> >  	"4c", "d1", "19", "99", "43", "b1", "af", "0c",
> >  };
> >  
> > +static const char *test_data_2_le[] __initdata = {
> > +static const char *test_data_4_le[] __initdata = {
> > +static const char *test_data_8_le[] __initdata = {
> 
> const char * __initdata
> 
> Why is test_data_1_le[] different?
> 
> Can we make them all "const char * const __initconst"?  That would make
> checkpatch happy ;)

I tried it, but it would have needed a lot more changes to shut up
warnings later in the code. This was the least intrusive.

checkpatch is a bit stupid about this, but then C declarations are
difficult to parse...

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.