On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:46 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2018-04-05 16:04:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > restricted_pointer() pretends that it prints the address when > > > kptr_restrict > > > is set to zero. But it is never called in this situation. Instead, > > > pointer() falls back to ptr_to_id() and hashes the pointer. > > > > > > This patch removes the potential confusion. klp_restrict is > > > checked > > > only > > > in restricted_pointer(). > > > > > > > > > > /* Maps a pointer to a 32 bit unique identifier. */ > > > -static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, struct > > > printf_spec spec) > > > +static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, > > > + const void *ptr, struct printf_spec spec) > > > > I don't think this change belongs to the patch. > > The const should have been there from the beginning. I have found it > because this patch added a call to ptr_to_id() which had the const > and compiler warned about cast problems.
So, why not to do a separate patch with clear intention? > IMHO, it is rather cosmetic change. >From my experience I'm afraid of cosmetic changes in the patches which might focus out attention on real fix. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
