On 19.07.21 г. 19:08, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:34:56PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > /me wonders, does this have any significant effect on the generated > code? https://theartofmachinery.com/2019/08/12/c_const_isnt_for_performance.html > > It's probably a good idea to feed the optimizer as much usage info as we > can, though I would imagine that for such a simple function it can > probably tell that we don't change *iomap. > > IMHO, constifiying functions is a good way to signal to /programmers/ > that they're not intended to touch the arguments, so > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --D > >> --- >> include/linux/iomap.h | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/iomap.h b/include/linux/iomap.h >> index 093519d91cc9cc..f9c36df6a3061b 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/iomap.h >> +++ b/include/linux/iomap.h >> @@ -91,8 +91,7 @@ struct iomap { >> const struct iomap_page_ops *page_ops; >> }; >> >> -static inline sector_t >> -iomap_sector(struct iomap *iomap, loff_t pos) >> +static inline sector_t iomap_sector(const struct iomap *iomap, loff_t pos) >> { >> return (iomap->addr + pos - iomap->offset) >> SECTOR_SHIFT; >> } >> -- >> 2.30.2 >> >
