On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:09:30AM +0100, Joel Granados wrote: > My idea was to do something similar to your originl RFC, where you have > an temporary proc_handler something like proc_hdlr_const (we would need > to work on the name) and move each subsystem to the new handler while > the others stay with the non-const one. At the end, the old proc_handler > function name would disapear and would be completely replaced by the new > proc_hdlr_const. > > This is of course extra work and might not be worth it if you don't get > negative feedback related to tree-wide changes. Therefore I stick to my > previous suggestion. Send the big tree-wide patches and only explore > this option if someone screams. I think we can do better, can't we just increase confidence in that we don't *need* muttable ctl_cables with something like smatch or coccinelle so that we can just make them const? Seems like a noble endeavor for us to generalize. Then we just breeze through by first fixing those that *are* using mutable tables by having it just de-register and then re-register new tables if they need to be changed, and then a new series is sent once we fix all those muttable tables. Luis
