Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] vsprintf: Consistent %pK handling for kptr_restrict == 0 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:11:59 +0300 |
| |
On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 14:05 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Sat 2018-04-07 17:08:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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:
> > > > > /* 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? > > If you insist I could do it as separate patch.
I believe, that logical changes are easier to review and understand when it's not mixed with other changes.
> > > 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. > > I would understand this if it was part of a large patch that changed > complex chain of functions. But this patch touched 5 lines. The const > is added into static function that is almost leaf and was called > only from a single location.
But it's up to you.
-- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
| |