Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
>>> "const" has nothing to do with "logical state". It has one meaning, and
>>> one meaning only: the compiler should complain if that particular type is
>>> used to do a write access.
>> Right, exactly.
>
> So why do you complain?
>
> kfree() literally doesn't write to the object.
>
>> You are the only one who has suggested it has anything to do with changes
>> through other pointers or in other ways. So you are arguing against only
>> yourself here.
>
> No, I'm saying that "const" has absolutely *zero* meaning on writes to an
> object through _other_ pointers (or direct access) to the object.
Hints: "restrict" is the C99 keyword for such requirement (or better
"const restrict")
BTW I think C use non const free as a BIG warning about not to be
to "smart" on optimization.
ciao
cate
--
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/
