Re: [PATCH] trace, RAS: remove unnecessary const
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Thu Mar 19 2015 - 08:58:08 EST
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:33:30 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:50:04PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> > These parameters are passed by value. There's no need to make them const.
>
> I can think of a reason:
>
> include/trace/../../include/ras/ras_event.h: In function âftrace_raw_event_mc_eventâ:
> include/trace/../../include/ras/ras_event.h:136:35: error: assignment of read-only parameter âtop_layerâ
> __entry->top_layer = top_layer = 12;
> ^
> ---
> diff --git a/include/ras/ras_event.h b/include/ras/ras_event.h
> index 79abb9c71772..e4721eac3e25 100644
> --- a/include/ras/ras_event.h
> +++ b/include/ras/ras_event.h
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mc_event,
> __assign_str(label, label);
> __entry->error_count = error_count;
> __entry->mc_index = mc_index;
> - __entry->top_layer = top_layer;
> + __entry->top_layer = top_layer = 12;
> __entry->middle_layer = mid_layer;
> __entry->lower_layer = low_layer;
> __entry->address = address;
> ---
>
> I'm not saying it is a particularly sane reason and no one would even
> *think* of changing TP parameters passed on from higher layers in the TP
> itself but I've seen people do lotsa crazy things - things they normally
> would never do - so if it doesn't hurt having the const here, what's the
> downside of having the compiler do that sanity checking for us too?
That's a bit of a stretch. But sure, there's no real downside to having
it, except that it makes one take a double take when seeing it, and
thinking about why it would even be needed (like I did).
>
> Steve, this is an invitation for your crazy fantasy! :-P
>
I think you had the crazy fantasy with the above patch!
-- Steve
--
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/