Re: [Patch] uml: drop const qualifier for kernel_execve()

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 01:02:16AM +0000, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:32:02PM +0000, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:51:09PM +0000, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>> >> >> UML implementation of kernel_execve() should not have const qualifier,
>> >> >> because it will finally call do_execve() which doesn't have.
>> >> >
>> >> > And you made sure that do_execve() is correctly annotated?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I checked that.
>> >
>> > Good.  Then please fix up do_execve() or let the warning stand out as
>> > a reminder.
>>
>> ??
>> Confused...
>>
>> do_execve() is OK, we don't need to fix it.
>
> I don't see where it writes through @filename.  So it seems the right
> fix would be to make do_execve()s parameter const (and as it seems, a
> lot more adjustments down this call graph) and not remove a correct
> const from a callsite.

Hello, Johannes.

I apologize for my late reply.

Well, not only @filename, but also the next two parameters, but if you also
make them const in do_execve(), you will get more warnings. :)
So I think my patch is correct.

Thanks for your review.
èº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËlzwm…ébëæìr¸›zX§»®w¥Š{ayºÊÚë,j­¢f£¢·hš‹àz¹®w¥¢¸¢·¦j:+v‰¨ŠwèjØm¶Ÿÿ¾«‘êçzZ+ƒùšŽŠÝj"ú!¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^¶m§ÿðÃnÆàþY&—