On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2023-12-12 23:51:30-0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > 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? > > The fact that the code compiles should be enough, no? > Any funky casting that would trick the compiler to accept it would > probably also confuse any other tool. I don't know the context, but the fact that a particular file compiles doesn't mean that all of the lines in the file have been subjected to the compiler, due to ifdefs. julia > > > 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. > > Ack. But I think the actual constification should really only be started > after the first series for the infrastructure is in. > > Thomas >
