Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8iMvzvSP9-YPe+ms4qVMjcQqNQ25Wa16JW_tEG7P+jtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180308080020.22828-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20180308080020.22828-13-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1520507105.11634.5.camel@perches.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8iMvzvSP9-YPe+ms4qVMjcQqNQ25Wa16JW_tEG7P+jtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:44:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-h9pZLxf6tp++UDy4LCjSu-3uUQDRFS3=HcTjnBdZ2Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] efi: make const array 'apple' static
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9 March 2018 at 07:43, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 8 March 2018 at 11:05, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> Don't populate the const read-only array 'buf' on the stack but instead
>>> make it static. Makes the object code smaller by 64 bytes:
>>>
>>> Before:
>>>    text          data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>>    9264             1      16    9281    2441 arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.o
>>>
>>> After:
>>>    text          data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>>    9200             1      16    9217    2401 arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.o
>>>
>>> (gcc version 7.2.0 x86_64)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>>> index 886a9115af62..f2251c1c9853 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static void retrieve_apple_device_properties(struct boot_params *boot_params)
>>>
>>>  static void setup_quirks(struct boot_params *boot_params)
>>>  {
>>> -     efi_char16_t const apple[] = { 'A', 'p', 'p', 'l', 'e', 0 };
>>> +     static efi_char16_t const apple[] = { 'A', 'p', 'p', 'l', 'e', 0 };
>>
>> Perhaps
>>
>> static const efi_char16_t apple[] ...
>>
>> is better.
>>
>
> Why would that be any better? I have always found the 'const'
> placement after the type to be much clearer.
>
> const void *
> void const *
> void * const
>
> I.e., #2 and #3 are equivalent,

That would be #1 and #2, of course

> and so 'const' associates to the left
> not to the right, unless it is at the beginning.
>
> Personally, I don't mind either way, but saying it is 'better' is a stretch imo