On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Make these const. Done using Coccinelle.
>>
>> @match disable optional_qualifier@
>> identifier s;
>> @@
>> static struct device_attribute s = {...};
>>
>> @ref@
>> position p;
>> identifier match.s;
>> @@
>> s@p
>>
>> @good1@
>> identifier match.s;
>> expression e1;
>> position ref.p;
>> @@
>> device_remove_file(e1,&s@p,...)
>>
>> @good2@
>> identifier match.s;
>> expression e1;
>> position ref.p;
>> @@
>> device_create_file(e1,&s@p,...)
>>
>>
>> @bad depends on !good1 && !good2@
>> position ref.p;
>> identifier match.s;
>> @@
>> s@p
>>
>> @depends on forall !bad disable optional_qualifier@
>> identifier match.s;
>> @@
>> static
>> + const
>> struct device_attribute s;
>>
>> Bhumika Goyal (6):
>> ACPI: make device_attribute const
>> nbd: make device_attribute const
>> hid: make device_attribute const
>> qlogic: make device_attribute const
>> platform/x86: make device_attribute const
>> power: supply: make device_attribute const
>
> It would be better to send these patches separately, because they
> touch code maintained by different people and I guess no one will take
> the whole series.
>
> I'll take care of the ACPI one, but the rest needs to go in via their
> proper trees.
>
Thanks for the note. From now onwards, I will send it separately
depending on the maintainers. But is possible please consider it this
time.
Thanks,
Bhumika
> Thanks,
> Rafael
