Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:11:56 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/31] Constify struct file_operations for 2.6.32 v1 |
| |
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 01:45:02AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 02:47:44AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote: > >> Greg KH wrote: > >>> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 03:50:23AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote: > >>>> Greg KH wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 01:02:59AM +0100, Emese Revfy wrote: > >>>>>> -static struct file_operations ptmx_fops; > >>>>>> +static const struct file_operations ptmx_fops = { > >>>>>> + .llseek = no_llseek, > >>>>>> + .read = tty_read, > >>>>>> + .write = tty_write, > >>>>>> + .poll = tty_poll, > >>>>>> + .unlocked_ioctl = tty_ioctl, > >>>>>> + .compat_ioctl = tty_compat_ioctl, > >>>>>> + .open = ptmx_open, > >>>>>> + .release = tty_release, > >>>>>> + .fasync = tty_fasync, > >>>>>> +}; > >>>>> You just made these functions all global, for no real good reason. Why > >>>>> did you do this? > >>>> I think this is the only way to make ptmx_fops const, provided we want to. > >>> Why do we want to? > >> Because I saw that checkpatch.pl itself tries to ensure the same I went > >> through the whole tree looking for non-const file_operations structures > >> and tried to make them const as best as I could. If you think making > >> ptmx_fops const is not worth the effort I will remove it from the patch. > > > > Based on the patch, I would think it is not worth it. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > Ok, I removed the affected hunks. > > From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com> > > Constify struct file_operations with some exceptions.
Now please break this patch (and your others) out into "one subsystem at a time" type thing so it will have a chance at being applied.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |