On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 01:02:16AM +0000, Américo Wang wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:32:02PM +0000, Américo Wang wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:51:09PM +0000, Américo Wang wrote: >> >> >> UML implementation of kernel_execve() should not have const qualifier, >> >> >> because it will finally call do_execve() which doesn't have. >> >> > >> >> > And you made sure that do_execve() is correctly annotated? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Yes, I checked that. >> > >> > Good. Then please fix up do_execve() or let the warning stand out as >> > a reminder. >> >> ?? >> Confused... >> >> do_execve() is OK, we don't need to fix it. > > I don't see where it writes through @filename. So it seems the right > fix would be to make do_execve()s parameter const (and as it seems, a > lot more adjustments down this call graph) and not remove a correct > const from a callsite.
Hello, Johannes. I apologize for my late reply. Well, not only @filename, but also the next two parameters, but if you also make them const in do_execve(), you will get more warnings. :) So I think my patch is correct. Thanks for your review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
