Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-173352-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 15:45:17 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the dma-mapping tree
Message-ID: <20240508134517.GA8526@lst.de>
References: <20240508091631.1ec34a25@canb.auug.org.au> <20240508065102.GC10736@lst.de> <cdc6c9e4-d604-4ae5-a56b-d8e9264ce5aa@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cdc6c9e4-d604-4ae5-a56b-d8e9264ce5aa@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:51:28AM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> I'm verry sorry for that. I had 2 trees, one with const get_dma_addr()
> and dma-for-next without const, and didn't check it compiles after
> rebasing >_<
> 
> net-next already has this const. We could leave it as in your attached
> patch, but then there'll be a trivial conflict when merging with
> net-next. Or I can send an incremental quick fix for dma-for-next, but
> then 2 commits (one in your tree and one in net-next) will have these
> changes duplicated.
> What do you think?

Let's just add the const annoations after the trees are merged into
Linus' tree. Nothing really wrong with not having them right now.