On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 09:13:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Aug 2023, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:58:15PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > of_reg is the only constant member of struct mfd_cell. It seems to be
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, what?
> > > >
> > > > struct mfd_cell {
> > > > const char *name;
> > > > [...]
> > > > const struct mfd_cell_acpi_match *acpi_match;
> > > > [...]
> > > > const struct software_node *swnode;
> > > > [...]
> > > > const char *of_compatible;
> > > > [...]
> > > > const u64 of_reg;
> > > > [...]
> > > > const struct resource *resources;
> > > > [...]
> > > > const char * const *parent_supplies;
> > > > [...]
> > > > };
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > All those are pointers to const, not const fields themselves. Only
> > > `of_reg` is const regardless of the whole structure.
> >
> > Please make that clear in the commit message.
>
> Could you please help with the wording? I'm surprised being asked to explain
> a basic C language feature in a commit message to have a patch accepted.
> Could it be due to me using 'constant' instead of 'const' that made it
> confusing?
I read the commit message to say that there aren't any consts in the
structure, but as you can see, there are plenty. Just change the
language to be more specific about what you actually mean. Or just drop
the sentence entirely.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]