On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 02:24:55PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2012/12/08 8:17), Cong Ding wrote: > >>>>>> Patch description please? > >>>>> there are 2 consts in the definition of one variable > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please put in an actual patch description. The first line (subject > >>>> line) is a title; the patch should make sense without it. > >>> sorry for that. so like this is fine? > >>> > >> > >> Well, except that typically you should explain which variable it is. > >> Yes, it is obvious if you look at the patch, but you're making the > >> reader spend a few more moments than necessary. > >> > >> Also, you should explain what the harm is -- if it breaks anything > >> or is just a cosmetic issue. > > sorry again for lacking of experience... > > and I missed another same error, so send version 2. > > Ah, sorry for my mistake. I would like to make both the value > pointed by the pointers and the pointers itself read-only. > Thus the right way of the patch should be; > > - print "const insn_attr_t const *inat_escape_tables[INAT_ESC_MAX + 1]" \ > + print "const insn_attr_t * const inat_escape_tables[INAT_ESC_MAX + 1]" \ > > Cong, could you update your patch? then I can Ack that. Hi Masami, Thank you for the note.
Hi Peter, I have updated and sent version 3, could you please help me update it? Thanks, - cong -- 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/
