From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:38:59 +0400
Message-ID: <4E8D6923.7080404@parallels.com>
References: <1317730680-24352-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>  <1317730680-24352-7-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>  <1317732535.2440.6.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>  <4E8C1064.3030902@parallels.com> <1317805090.2473.28.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <paul@paulmenage.org>,
	<lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	<ebiederm@xmission.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
	<gthelen@google.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	<avagin@parallels.com>, <devel@openvz.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1317805090.2473.28.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 10/05/2011 12:58 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 =C3=A0 12:08 +0400, Glauber Costa a =C3=A9=
crit :
>> On 10/04/2011 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>> 2) Could you add const qualifiers when possible to your pointers ?
>>
>> Well, I'll go over the patches again and see where I can add them.
>> Any specific place site you're concerned about?
>
> Everywhere its possible :
>
> It helps reader to instantly knows if a function is about to change s=
ome
> part of the object or only read it, without reading function body.
Sure it does.

So, give me your opinion on this:

most of the acessors inside struct sock do not modify the pointers,
but return an address of an element inside it (that can later on be
modified by the caller.

I think it is fine for the purpose of clarity, but to avoid warnings we=
=20
end up having to do stuff like this:

+#define CONSTCG(m) ((struct mem_cgroup *)(m))
+long *tcp_sysctl_mem(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+       return CONSTCG(memcg)->tcp.tcp_prot_mem;
+}

Is it acceptable?