From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Revert "Make 'bt_sfi_data' const" Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:28:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20171228102812.cm7yylrrq2omfw5y@gmail.com> References: <20171228100801.67744-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:35501 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752726AbdL1K2Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2017 05:28:16 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171228100801.67744-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Darren Hart , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Bhumika Goyal , julia.lawall@lip6.fr * Andy Shevchenko wrote: > The annoying static analyzer follow up patches make a pain rather then > fixing issues. > > The one done by commit 276c87054751 > > ("x86/platform/intel-mid: Make 'bt_sfi_data' const") > > made an obvious regression [BugLink] since the struct bt_sfi_data used > as a temporary container for important data that is used to fill > 'parent' and 'name' fields in struct platform_device_info. > > That's why revert the commit which had been apparently done w/o reading > the code. > > BugLink: https://github.com/andy-shev/linux/issues/20 > Cc: Bhumika Goyal > Cc: julia.lawall@lip6.fr > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > --- > arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c > index dc036e511f48..5a0483e7bf66 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static int __init tng_bt_sfi_setup(struct bt_sfi_data *ddata) > return 0; > } > > -static const struct bt_sfi_data tng_bt_sfi_data __initdata = { > +static struct bt_sfi_data tng_bt_sfi_data __initdata = { > .setup = tng_bt_sfi_setup, > }; This is nasty, why didn't the compiler warn about this bug? Normally when using a const data structure for a non-const purpose. (Unless there's a type cast which loses the type - one of the many reasons why type casts should be avoided.) Thanks, Ingo