El Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:59:42PM +0200 Arnd Bergmann ha dit: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke <[email protected]> wrote: > > El Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:11:55PM +0200 Arnd Bergmann ha dit: > >> I see that container_of() has been modified in linux-next and no longer > >> adds > >> the 'const' keyword, do we actually still need the patch? > > > > There is still (at least) the case of const arrays passed to > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE. > > Does the 'const' have any effect there? As it's just an alias, it > should at least > not impact the placement of the symbol in the object file, right?
I agree, it shouldn't make a difference. > Maybe we can just remove that 'const' too. Seems worth a try. Do you want to send a patch for the removal? > Do you see any other instances? For both x86 and arm64 defconfig the instances are all from container_of() or MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE.
