My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
patch below takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-2.6.16-rc4-mm2-orig/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c 2006-02-24 19:25:39.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc4-mm2/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c 2006-02-24 19:38:28.000000000 +0100
@@ -2958,7 +2958,7 @@ static void nfs4_delegreturn_release(voi
kfree(calldata);
}
-const static struct rpc_call_ops nfs4_delegreturn_ops = {
+static const struct rpc_call_ops nfs4_delegreturn_ops = {
.rpc_call_prepare = nfs4_delegreturn_prepare,
.rpc_call_done = nfs4_delegreturn_done,
.rpc_release = nfs4_delegreturn_release,
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
> patch below takes care of it.
>
I can shepherd that in for 2.6.17 (unless Andrew wants to make it a
2.6.16 priority?).
Cheers,
Trond
On 2/24/06, Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
> > patch below takes care of it.
> >
>
> I can shepherd that in for 2.6.17 (unless Andrew wants to make it a
> 2.6.16 priority?).
>
No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
"storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
2.6.17 is fine, no need to rush that one.
Just a small thing that might as well be done :)
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
independent from the rest and possible to turn off...
On 2/25/06, Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
> > "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
>
> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
> independent from the rest and possible to turn off...
>
I agree.
But, it's harmless to change, and a patch is already in mainline a
while back that changes all occourences except this one (i simly
forgot one), so might as well get the last one and then it's a
non-issue.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Al Viro <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
>> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
>
> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
> independent from the rest and possible to turn off...
C99 does deprecate "const static":
6.11.5 Storage-class specifiers
1 The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is
an obsolescent feature.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [email protected]
web: http://benpfaff.org
>>> No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about
>>> "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
>>
>> Neither does C99, so ICC really should either STFU or make that warning
>> independent from the rest and possible to turn off...
>
>C99 does deprecate "const static":
>
> 6.11.5 Storage-class specifiers
>1 The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
> beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is
> an obsolescent feature.
>
Hm, how about "inline"? GCC also just keeps quiet when a function (or
prototype) is written as:
inline static int foo(int bar);
Jan Engelhardt
--
Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> writes:
> Hm, how about "inline"? GCC also just keeps quiet when a function (or
> prototype) is written as:
>
> inline static int foo(int bar);
"iniline" is not a storage-class specifier, thus it should be handled like
"const" etc.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstra?e 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."