Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/20] rbtree: add const qualifier to some functions

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 17.06.17 at 11:32, <kpraveen.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The 'rb_first()', 'rb_last()', 'rb_next()' and 'rb_prev()' calls
> take a pointer to an RB node or RB root. They do not change the
> pointed objects, so add a 'const' qualifier in order to make life
> of the users of these functions easier.
> 
> Indeed, if I have my own constant pointer &const struct my_type *p,
> and I call 'rb_next(&p->rb)', I get a GCC warning:
> 
> warning: passing argument 1 of ‘rb_next’ discards qualifiers from pointer 
> target
> type
> 
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [Linux commit f4b477c47332367d35686bd2b808c2156b96d7c7]
> 
> Ported to Xen.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Kumar <kpraveen.lkml@xxxxxxxxx>

This looks okay now from a content pov, but I still have a question
and a remark.

Question: Who's the original author? According to the Linux commit,
it's Artem, but without an explicit From: tag I think anyone trying to
"git am" you mail would put you in as the author. With this taken
care of (which the committer may be willing to do)
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Remark: You've sent v3 of the series. This patch has no version
indicator at all, and most other patches say v2. This is all quite
inconsistent, and prevents easily identifying the various pieces
belonging together when not using a threaded view. If you add
new patches to a series, don't start them at v1. Instead in the
brief revision info (after the first --- marker) simply say "New in
v3."

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel