[PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Jesper Juhl]

My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
patch below takes care of it.


Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
---

 fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-2.6.16-rc4-mm2-orig/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c	2006-02-24 19:25:39.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc4-mm2/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c	2006-02-24 19:38:28.000000000 +0100
@@ -2958,7 +2958,7 @@ static void nfs4_delegreturn_release(voi
 	kfree(calldata);
 }
 
-const static struct rpc_call_ops nfs4_delegreturn_ops = {
+static const struct rpc_call_ops nfs4_delegreturn_ops = {
 	.rpc_call_prepare = nfs4_delegreturn_prepare,
 	.rpc_call_done = nfs4_delegreturn_done,
 	.rpc_release = nfs4_delegreturn_release,

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Trond Myklebust]

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
> patch below takes care of it.
> 

I can shepherd that in for 2.6.17 (unless Andrew wants to make it a
2.6.16 priority?).

Cheers,
  Trond

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Jesper Juhl]

On 2/24/06, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
> > patch below takes care of it.
> >
>
> I can shepherd that in for 2.6.17 (unless Andrew wants to make it a
> 2.6.16 priority?).
>

No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
"storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.

2.6.17 is fine, no need to rush that one.

Just a small thing that might as well be done :)

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Al Viro]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.

Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
independent from the rest and possible to turn off...

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Jesper Juhl]

On 2/25/06, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
> > "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
>
> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
> independent from the rest and possible to turn off...
>

I agree.

But, it's harmless to change, and a patch is already in mainline a
while back that changes all occourences except this one (i simly
forgot one), so might as well get the last one and then it's a
non-issue.


--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Ben Pfaff]

Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
>> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
>
> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
> independent from the rest and possible to turn off...

C99 does deprecate "const static":

     6.11.5 Storage-class specifiers
1    The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
     beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is
     an obsolescent feature.

-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: blp@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Jan Engelhardt]

>>> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
>>> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
>>
>> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
>> independent from the rest and possible to turn off...
>
>C99 does deprecate "const static":
>
>     6.11.5 Storage-class specifiers
>1    The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
>     beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is
>     an obsolescent feature.
>
Hm, how about "inline"? GCC also just keeps quiet when a function (or 
prototype) is written as:

inline static int foo(int bar);



Jan Engelhardt
-- 

Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

[Andreas Schwab]

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:

> Hm, how about "inline"? GCC also just keeps quiet when a function (or 
> prototype) is written as:
>
> inline static int foo(int bar);

"iniline" is not a storage-class specifier, thus it should be handled like
"const" etc.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."