On 28.10.2024 17:18, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 28/10/2024 4:12 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 28.10.2024 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 28/10/2024 4:03 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> As with 9cbf61445cda ("xen/earlycpio: Drop nextoff parameter"): While >>>> this is imported from Linux, the parameter not being pointer-to-const is >>>> dubious in the first place and we're not plausibly going to gain a write >>>> through it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>> You haven't tried compiling this, have you? >> Of course I have. Is there any subtlety with compiler versions? Or what >> else am I missing? > > struct cpio_data's copy of this field is non-const (which you keep on > noting that new compilers will object to),
New compilers? I'm afraid I'm missing context. With gcc14 the patch builds fine. I didn't try _older_ ones (but I see no reason why they might object; see below). > and you can't change that > without breaking the build in microcode. I don't need to change that, "thanks" to cd.data = (void *)dptr; casting away const-ness. That is - compilers ought to be fine with the change; Misra won't like it. > Nothing of this form can be taken until the constness is consistent in > microcode, after which yes it can mostly become const. We can move there in steps, can't we? Jan