Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 02:53:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55:49PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > "those callers". There was _exactly one_ caller, and that was an out-of-tree > > module. There were not any in-kernel callers before, and it did not generate > >

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55:49PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > "those callers". There was _exactly one_ caller, and that was an out-of-tree > module. There were not any in-kernel callers before, and it did not generate > any warning. That is perhaps why no one had constified it before me. This

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 02:53:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55:49PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: those callers. There was _exactly one_ caller, and that was an out-of-tree module. There were not any in-kernel callers before, and it did not generate any

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55:49PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: those callers. There was _exactly one_ caller, and that was an out-of-tree module. There were not any in-kernel callers before, and it did not generate any warning. That is perhaps why no one had constified it before me. This does

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Aug 31 2007 02:11, Satyam Sharma wrote: > >> So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without > >> having > >> to cast it back to [non-const]. > > > >... which makes zero sense, because ... > > > >> Why one would have a

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Aug 31 2007 02:11, Satyam Sharma wrote: >> So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without having >> to cast it back to [non-const]. > >... which makes zero sense, because ... > >> Why one would have a const struct task_struct * in the first place >> is a different

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Aug 28 2007 01:33, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > >On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> Add const to some struct task_struct * uses > > > >Why, oh, why? > > > So that you can actually pass in a const struct

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Aug 28 2007 01:33, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> Add const to some struct task_struct * uses > >Why, oh, why? So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without having to cast it back to [non-const]. Why one

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Aug 28 2007 01:33, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Why, oh, why? So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without having to cast it back to [non-const]. Why one would have

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Aug 28 2007 01:33, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Why, oh, why? So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Aug 31 2007 02:11, Satyam Sharma wrote: So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without having to cast it back to [non-const]. ... which makes zero sense, because ... Why one would have a const struct task_struct * in the first place is a different matter. ...

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Aug 31 2007 02:11, Satyam Sharma wrote: So that you can actually pass in a const struct task_struct * without having to cast it back to [non-const]. ... which makes zero sense, because ... Why one would have a const struct

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Why, oh, why? This way code there are more characters on screen and zero change in vmlinux, at least here. > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -1222,22 +1222,22

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

Joe Perches napsal(a): > Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Does this have any impact on generated code? What (some objdumps or something)? Or more descriptive log, why is this about to be done, please. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > >

[PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- include/linux/sched.h | 24 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h index ba78807..71d40a1 100644 ---

[PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Signed-off-by: Joe Perches [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- include/linux/sched.h | 24 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h index ba78807..71d40a1 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

Joe Perches napsal(a): Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Does this have any impact on generated code? What (some objdumps or something)? Or more descriptive log, why is this about to be done, please. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- include/linux/sched.h |

Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: Add const to some struct task_struct * uses Why, oh, why? This way code there are more characters on screen and zero change in vmlinux, at least here. --- a/include/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/linux/sched.h @@ -1222,22 +1222,22 @@