On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 03:17:22PM +0100, 'Jonathan Neuschäfer via B4 Relay' via USB Mass Storage on Linux wrote: > While reading code, I noticed that some arrays in USB mass storage > drivers are declared static but not const, even though they are not > modified. This patchset marks them const. > > All patches were compile-tested. > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.ne@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Add new patches 2-9 > - Use consistent authorship information > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250225-misc-const-v1-1-121ff3b86437@xxxxxxxxxx The patches themselves look good, but I still think you should explain in the patch descriptions why declaring these arrays const is worth doing. Merely saying _what_ you are doing isn't good enough. We can tell what a patch does just by reading it. What we can't always tell is _why_ you would want to do it. That is what needs to be explained. The explanation doesn't have to be terribly long or detailed, but you should not omit it entirely. Alan Stern
