On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:44:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:23:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:16:00PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > The dma-attrs in current form were added around 2008 in 74bc7ceebfa1
> > > ("dma: add dma_*map*_attrs() interfaces"), I think. Since that time, for
> > > example, the dma_map_*_attrs() did not change.
> >
> > So we don't expect this to change either?
>
> I do not know, I am not aware of planned changes to that.
If this will not change then I think this change is good.
> > > > If the concern is the const data, why not require const struct dma_attr
> > > > for the APIs that we know can and should use const ?
> > >
> > > The const is one concern. Complicated (more than expected) usage of dma
> > > attributes by the caller is second.
> > >
> > > Switching it to const would also reduce the possibilities of API
> > > extension.
> >
> > My point was that const can be used for only APIs that we are sure of
> > that need it.
>
> As of now, dma_attrs should be const everywhere. That would be almost
> the same patchset as current one. If you consider extending the
> dma_attrs to something new and not yet known, then how will
> differentiate between cases when 'const' is needed for sure?
Depends on the use case, but if it known it should always be const
then great.
> I understand your concern. Sticking to current API for that reason might
> be a good defensive API programming... or might be way of keeping this
> function prototype for long...
Since this hasn't changed for years at all I think your change
is reasonable.
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
