On 8 March 2018 at 11:05, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> >> >> Don't populate the const read-only array 'buf' on the stack but instead >> make it static. Makes the object code smaller by 64 bytes: >> >> Before: >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 9264 1 16 9281 2441 >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.o >> >> After: >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 9200 1 16 9217 2401 >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.o >> >> (gcc version 7.2.0 x86_64) >> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c >> b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c >> index 886a9115af62..f2251c1c9853 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c >> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static void retrieve_apple_device_properties(struct >> boot_params *boot_params) >> >> static void setup_quirks(struct boot_params *boot_params) >> { >> - efi_char16_t const apple[] = { 'A', 'p', 'p', 'l', 'e', 0 }; >> + static efi_char16_t const apple[] = { 'A', 'p', 'p', 'l', 'e', 0 }; > > Perhaps > > static const efi_char16_t apple[] ... > > is better. >
Why would that be any better? I have always found the 'const' placement after the type to be much clearer. const void * void const * void * const I.e., #2 and #3 are equivalent, and so 'const' associates to the left not to the right, unless it is at the beginning. Personally, I don't mind either way, but saying it is 'better' is a stretch imo