On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 13:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > v2: low the tone of accusation that this made a regression > > > > BTW., don't worry about that aspect too much: after a long debugging > > session it's > > pretty natural to be upset at whoever introduced a regression. > > It appears that regression has been introduced by a new dependency to > the hci_bcm.c. > > In any case, can we apply this one to 4.15 cycle to make others prevent > do an actual regressions further: > > commit 03838ae1e8f692dd2bdbd49820ed668d4b7bfbc2 > Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Jan 5 13:26:44 2018 +1100 > > arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c: fix const > confusion > > > > > ( In fact a number of times I too got upset at the moron who wrote a > > particular > > piece of buggy code, only for 'git annotate' to remind me that the > > moron was me. ) > > > > I personally just ignore the emotional attributes, and I usually edit > > changelogs > > accordingly as well so the temporary state of mind of finding a > > regression doesn't > > trickle upstream. > > > > Plus in this particular case if we can help type propagation for > > driver data to > > become a bit cleaner then the kernel project has gained a bit through > > all this > > pain. > > I has been thinking if 0day can complain about these: > 1) castings in new code > 2) applying const to older *working* code > > Fengguang, what do you think? As suggested previously, I think it would be better if code that retrieves const structures from nonconst fields would store the result in a const variable. Then the compiler would pick up the verification from there. A Coccinelle script can detect cases where this property does not hold, at least within a single file. This would have protected the given code and still allowed constant structures to be made const. julia
