Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:00:57 +0000
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] device property: Keep dev_fwnode() and
 dev_fwnode_const() separate
Message-ID: <YzrO+ZNmpKetdIPU@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220928105746.51208-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20220928105746.51208-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <YzQqcFZtJn90URrJ@kroah.com>
 <Yzb9nXSxvgJ+Mj6z@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
 <YzcAh/xtqQM1Qin4@kroah.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hHPjSN-369pagN3Mnxd1yvc6+4YGb0Kpx3=+aahV=AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hHPjSN-369pagN3Mnxd1yvc6+4YGb0Kpx3=+aahV=AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Rafael,

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 01:54:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I ask as I just went through a large refactoring of the kobject layer to
> > mark many things const * and I find it a bit "sad" that functions like
> > this:
> >         static inline struct device *kobj_to_dev(const struct kobject *kobj)
> >         {
> >                 return container_of(kobj, struct device, kobj);
> >         }
> > have the ability to take a read-only pointer and spit out a writable one
> > thanks to the pointer math in container_of() with no one being the
> > wiser.
> 
> Well, is this really a problem?
> 
> After all, if an immutable structure is embedded in another one, that
> doesn't automatically imply that the containing structure has to be
> immutable too.  Hence, a const pointer to the inner structure doesn't
> automatically yield a const pointer to the outer one.

I think in that case it'd be better, to at least make an informed decision
on that instead of just dropping the const qualifier.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus