Re: [PATCH 1/3] ftrace: graph of a single function

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 09:41:18AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:36:57 -0500
> > > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +static struct seq_operations ftrace_graph_seq_ops = {
> > > > +	.start = g_start,
> > > > +	.next = g_next,
> > > > +	.stop = g_stop,
> > > > +	.show = g_show,
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > This could be static I think.
> > 
> > s/static/const/
> > 
> > Damn damn damn damn!!!! I said to myself, I need to add const there and 
> > still forgot :-(
> 
> No need to get stressed up about such details - we need checkpatch help 
> for this.

This seems similar to the file_operations check we added recently.  As in
should we be suggesting that seq_operations should generally be const.
That seems consistant at least to my mind.

-apw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/