Hello Andy, On 19.03.21 13:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:46 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fat...@pengutronix.de> wrote: >> On 19.03.21 12:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fat...@pengutronix.de> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We now have three places within the same file doing the same operation >>>> of freeing this pointer and setting it anew. A helper make this >>> >>> makes >>> >>>> arguably easier to read, so add one. >>> >>> FWIW, >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> >> >> Thanks will add for v3. >> >>> Now I'm wondering why deferred_probe_reason is not defined with const. >>> >>> Can you check and maybe squeeze a patch in the middle (before these >>> two of this series) to move to const? >> >> The deferred_probe_reason is only used in this file and it either holds >> NULL or a pointer to a dynamically allocated string. I don't see a reason >> why the member should be const. > > But we want to be reliant on the contents of the string, right? > I would put this why it shouldn't be const. > > As far as I understand the strictness here is for good.
I don't understand. Mind sending a patch that I can squash? Cheers, Ahmad > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
