Hi Jan,
On 06/04/2021 09:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.04.2021 17:57, Julien Grall wrote:
From: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
Both name and opt_name are pointing to literal string. So mark both of
the fields as const.
Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
albeit ...
--- a/xen/common/sched/private.h
+++ b/xen/common/sched/private.h
@@ -272,8 +272,8 @@ static inline spinlock_t *pcpu_schedule_trylock(unsigned
int cpu)
}
struct scheduler {
- char *name; /* full name for this scheduler */
- char *opt_name; /* option name for this scheduler */
+ const char *name; /* full name for this scheduler */
+ const char *opt_name; /* option name for this scheduler */
... I'd like to suggest considering at least the latter to become
an array instead of a pointer - there's little point wasting 8
bytes of storage for the pointer when the strings pointed to are
all at most 9 bytes long (right now; I don't expect much longer
ones to appear).
I have tried this simple/dumb change on top of my patch:
diff --git a/xen/common/sched/private.h b/xen/common/sched/private.h
index a870320146ef..ab2236874217 100644
--- a/xen/common/sched/private.h
+++ b/xen/common/sched/private.h
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static inline spinlock_t
*pcpu_schedule_trylock(unsigned int cpu)
struct scheduler {
const char *name; /* full name for this scheduler */
- const char *opt_name; /* option name for this scheduler */
+ const char opt_name[9]; /* option name for this scheduler */
unsigned int sched_id; /* ID for this scheduler */
void *sched_data; /* global data pointer */
struct cpupool *cpupool;/* points to this scheduler's pool */
GCC will throw an error:
core.c: In function ‘scheduler_init’:
core.c:2987:17: error: assignment of read-only variable ‘ops’
ops = *schedulers[i];
^
core.c:2997:21: error: assignment of read-only variable ‘ops’
ops = *schedulers[i];
^
I don't particularly want to drop the const. So the code would probably
need some rework.
My patch doesn't change the size of the structure, so I would prefer to
keep this patch as-is.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
