Re: [patch 2.6.17-rc1] Reinstate const in next_thread()

Andrew Morton (on Mon, 3 Apr 2006 01:33:42 -0700) wrote:
>Keith Owens <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Before commit 47e65328a7b1cdfc4e3102e50d60faf94ebba7d3, next_thread()
>> took a const task_t.  Reinstate the const qualifier, getting the next
>> thread never changes the current thread.
>> 
>
>Can do, but why?  Does code generation improve?

I have not checked.  The const qualifier on this type of function falls
into the "better safe than sorry" category.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Re: [patch 2.6.17-rc1] Reinstate const in next_thread()
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2.6.17-rc1] Reinstate const in next_thread()
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.17-rc1 core_sys_select incompatible pointer types
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2.6.17-rc1] Reinstate const in next_thread()
• Next by thread: 2.6.17-rc1 core_sys_select incompatible pointer types
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]