On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:25:54AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> The one thing that I'm not sure is really consistent yet wrt. the > >> constification is that now you need to write e.g. > >> > >> static const char __cpuinitcdata example[]; > >> > >> and (accidentally) omitting the 'const' (as it's really an apparently > >> redundant thing now) as in > >> > >> static char __cpuinitcdata example[]; > >> > >> will cause section type conflicts (at the compiler or linker level). I > >> therefore think that the 'const' should really be part of the > >> __{cpu,mem,dev}cdata definitions (requiring the attribute to be > >> placed properly, namely placement at the end of a declaration as > >> is possible with __{cpu,mem,dev}initdata is then not an option here). > > > >I need to play a little with this before I make up my mind. > >I do not like the concpet of hiding the const too much - it will > >be non-obvious why the compiler complains if the only thing that > >distingush const from non-const is a small capital 'c' within > >__cpucinitdata (versus __cpuinitdata). > > That's the main reason I preferred __{cpu,mem,dev}initconst, as it > makes it more obvious that the declared thing is 'const'.
I will try with these names - thanks (Saw Adrian's comment but agree it is too long). I will likely not have anything ready until wednesday so feel free to beat me. Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/