Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-196777-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <7f7c3bbe-e250-420d-a7d5-89508d881f0b@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:30:08 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [QUESTION] mm: Redundant const parameter?
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Anshuman.Khandual@arm.com
References: <e5f01ffe-de51-4079-a87f-2886788422f9@arm.com>
 <e6b7858b-39cd-432d-9206-4ccbd153baa2@arm.com>
From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <e6b7858b-39cd-432d-9206-4ccbd153baa2@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2024/5/31 19:31, Dev Jain wrote:
> I guess it would be better if I send this as a patch and wait for comments.

Ah, you're right. I think it should be:

	return folio_test_workingset(slab_folio(slab));

Right? Don't notice there isn't any build warning about this "const" discard.

Thanks.

> 
> On 5/31/24 16:42, Dev Jain wrote:
>> Hi Chengming,
>>
>> In mm/slub.c, you had defined slab_test_node_partial() to take a const parameter.
>>
>> Is there any point of taking in a const, when you are anyways typecasting it to
>>
>> a (struct folio *) from (const struct folio *) ? In fact, at the place where you call
>>
>> slab_test_node_partial(), the struct slab *slab is not const.
>>
>> Please comment.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> DJ
>>
>>
>>
>>