On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Ming Lei <ming....@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it should be the cleanest, I don't do it because I thought that might
> have caused one compile warning('const char *' points to memory
> without 'const', like below)
You can just keep the const.
In fact, you could even add one, and make it be
static const char * const fw_path[] = {
We currently don't mark fw_path[] itself const (even though it is),
only the strings it points to.
> but in fact there isn't any warning with above change and it does work, still
> don't know why? :-(
It's valid to cast a non-const pointer to a const one. It's the
*other* way around that is invalid.
So marking fw_path[] as having 'const char *' elements just means that
we won't be changing those elements through the fw_path[] array
(correct: we only read them). The fact that one of those same pointers
is then also available through a non-const pointer variable means that
they can change through *that* pointer, but that doesn't change the
fact that fw_path[] itself contains const pointers.
Remember: in C, a "const pointer" does *not* mean that the thing it
points to cannot change. It only means that it cannot change through
*that* pointer.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
