On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 03:21:21PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > node isn't changed, so we don't need to retreive this structure > > everytime we move the object. Maybe compiler do this optimization, > > but making it explicitly is better. > > > > Qualifying the pointer as const would be even more explicit. Hello, So what you recommend is something likes below? - struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(cachep, node); + struct kmem_cache_node * const n = get_node(cachep, node); I don't have seen this form of code protecting pointer itself in mm. Instead, I have seen 'const struct kmem_cache_node *n' which protects memory pointed by pointer. But this case isn't that case. Am I missing something? > > > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> Thank you! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>