On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Basically, the strategy of the patch is that one may consider it
>> preferable to duplicate the structure for the different alternatives,
>>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Basically, the strategy of the patch is that one may consider it
> > preferable to duplicate the structure for the different alternatives,
> > rather than use __ro_after_init.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:23:41PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Basically, the strategy of the patch is that one may consider it
> preferable to duplicate the structure for the different alternatives,
> rather than use __ro_after_init. Perhaps if the structure were larger,
> then __ro_after_init
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:43:32PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > The question was whether the point to the rtc_class_ops could be made
> > > __ro_after_init. And Russell is right, it is pointed to by the ops
> > > pointer in a struct
> The question was whether the point to the rtc_class_ops could be made
> __ro_after_init. And Russell is right, it is pointed to by the ops
> pointer in a struct rtc_device and that struct is dynamically allocated
> in rtc_device_register().
OK, I think it's a terminology issue. You mean the
On 04/01/2017 at 11:57:00 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote :
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:06
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > > wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:18:29PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:01:02PM +0530, Bhumika Goyal wrote:
> >> The object armada38x_rtc_ops of type rtc_class_ops structure is not
> >>
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:01:02PM +0530, Bhumika Goyal wrote:
>> The object armada38x_rtc_ops of type rtc_class_ops structure is not
>> modified after getting initialized by armada38x_rtc_probe. Apart from
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:01:02PM +0530, Bhumika Goyal wrote:
> The object armada38x_rtc_ops of type rtc_class_ops structure is not
> modified after getting initialized by armada38x_rtc_probe. Apart from
> getting referenced in init it is also passed as an argument to the function
>
10 matches
Mail list logo