Re: [PATCH v1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Revert "Make 'bt_sfi_data' const"

[Ingo Molnar]

* Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> >
> > * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 11:28 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The annoying static analyzer follow up patches make a pain rather
> > > > > then
> > > > > fixing issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > The one done by commit 276c87054751
> > > > >
> > > > > ("x86/platform/intel-mid: Make 'bt_sfi_data' const")
> > > > >
> > > > > made an obvious regression [BugLink] since the struct bt_sfi_data
> > > > > used
> > > > > as a temporary container for important data that is used to fill
> > > > > 'parent' and 'name' fields in struct platform_device_info.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why revert the commit which had been apparently done w/o
> > > > > reading
> > > > > the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > BugLink: https://github.com/andy-shev/linux/issues/20
> > > > > Cc: Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: julia.lawall@xxxxxxx
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c
> > > > > b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c
> > > > > index dc036e511f48..5a0483e7bf66 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c
> > > > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static int __init tng_bt_sfi_setup(struct
> > > > > bt_sfi_data *ddata)
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > -static const struct bt_sfi_data tng_bt_sfi_data __initdata = {
> > > > > +static struct bt_sfi_data tng_bt_sfi_data __initdata = {
> > > > >  	.setup	= tng_bt_sfi_setup,
> > > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > This is nasty, why didn't the compiler warn about this bug?
> > > >
> > > > Normally when using a const data structure for a non-const purpose.
> > > > (Unless
> > > > there's a type cast which loses the type - one of the many reasons why
> > > > type casts
> > > > should be avoided.)
> > >
> > > Now I'm trying to get this.
> > >
> > > First of all, the new dependency to hci_bcm makes this one not compiled
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > Second, there is a cast as you truthfully predicted...
> > >
> > > I would say that revert is needed, but it seems it wasn't a culprit for
> > > the bug (rather the new dependency is). So, it might need rewording of
> > > the commit message to low tone of the accusations.
> >
> > Your fix is absolutely needed and welcome, but I'd first like to see a build error
> > or build warning that avoids the introduction of this class of problems in the
> > future - then apply your fix in a separate patch.
> >
> > Constification patches are useful in general, and such breakages are hard to debug
> 
> I will try to make the type adjustment.

Assuming it's all a natural improvement to the affected code. I'm really just 
guessing blindly here - reality might interfere!

> [...] There does seem to be a few cases where the field actually does hold an 
> integer.  I guess this is not a problem?

Could you point to such an example?

Thanks,

	Ingo