On Sat, 2017-06-17 at 15:02 +0530, Praveen Kumar wrote:
> The 'rb_first()', 'rb_last()', 'rb_next()' and 'rb_prev()' calls
> take a pointer to an RB node or RB root. They do not change the
> pointed objects, so add a 'const' qualifier in order to make life
> of the users of these functions easier.
>>> On 19.06.17 at 16:09, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.06.17 at 11:32, wrote:
>>> The 'rb_first()', 'rb_last()', 'rb_next()' and 'rb_prev()' calls
>>> take a pointer to an RB node or RB root. They do not change the
>>> pointed objects, so add a 'const'
Hi Jan,
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.06.17 at 11:32, wrote:
>> The 'rb_first()', 'rb_last()', 'rb_next()' and 'rb_prev()' calls
>> take a pointer to an RB node or RB root. They do not change the
>> pointed objects, so add a 'const' qualifier in order to make lif
>>> On 17.06.17 at 11:32, wrote:
> The 'rb_first()', 'rb_last()', 'rb_next()' and 'rb_prev()' calls
> take a pointer to an RB node or RB root. They do not change the
> pointed objects, so add a 'const' qualifier in order to make life
> of the users of these functions easier.
>
> Indeed, if I have
The 'rb_first()', 'rb_last()', 'rb_next()' and 'rb_prev()' calls
take a pointer to an RB node or RB root. They do not change the
pointed objects, so add a 'const' qualifier in order to make life
of the users of these functions easier.
Indeed, if I have my own constant pointer &const struct my_type
