On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:02:02PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. Fair enough, I'll add such explanations to the patches. Roughly, my motivations are: - Moving data to read-only memory can prevent unintended modifications and the hard-to-debug issue that might follow - Const makes it easier for human readers to know what to expect Best regards
