On 10/05/2011 12:58 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:

Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 12:08 +0400, Glauber Costa a écrit :

quoted

On 10/04/2011 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

quoted

2) Could you add const qualifiers when possible to your pointers ?

Well, I'll go over the patches again and see where I can add them.
Any specific place site you're concerned about?

Everywhere its possible :

It helps reader to instantly knows if a function is about to change some
part of the object or only read it, without reading function body.

Sure it does.

So, give me your opinion on this:

most of the acessors inside struct sock do not modify the pointers,
but return an address of an element inside it (that can later on be
modified by the caller.

I think it is fine for the purpose of clarity, but to avoid warnings we 
end up having to do stuff like this:

+#define CONSTCG(m) ((struct mem_cgroup *)(m))
+long *tcp_sysctl_mem(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+       return CONSTCG(memcg)->tcp.tcp_prot_mem;
+}

Is it acceptable?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>