Re: [PATCH 2/2] test-hexdump.c: Fix initconst confusion

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 03:35:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > --- a/lib/test-hexdump.c
> > +++ b/lib/test-hexdump.c
> > @@ -18,26 +18,26 @@ static const unsigned char data_b[] = {
> >  
> >  static const unsigned char data_a[] = ".2.{....p..$}.4...1.....L...C...";
> >  
> > -static const char *test_data_1_le[] __initconst = {
> > +static const char * const test_data_1_le[] __initconst = {
> 
> const char * const __initconst

This one didn't cause any warnings elsewhere.

> 
> >  	"be", "32", "db", "7b", "0a", "18", "93", "b2",
> >  	"70", "ba", "c4", "24", "7d", "83", "34", "9b",
> >  	"a6", "9c", "31", "ad", "9c", "0f", "ac", "e9",
> >  	"4c", "d1", "19", "99", "43", "b1", "af", "0c",
> >  };
> >  
> > +static const char *test_data_2_le[] __initdata = {
> > +static const char *test_data_4_le[] __initdata = {
> > +static const char *test_data_8_le[] __initdata = {
> 
> const char * __initdata
> 
> Why is test_data_1_le[] different?
> 
> Can we make them all "const char * const __initconst"?  That would make
> checkpatch happy ;)

I tried it, but it would have needed a lot more changes to shut up
warnings later in the code. This was the least intrusive.

checkpatch is a bit stupid about this, but then C declarations are
difficult to parse...

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/