On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:08:31PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 13/02/20(Thu) 17:23, Visa Hankala wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 06:07:01PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > On 13/02/20(Thu) 16:53, Visa Hankala wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > I wonder if this constification should also be
Visa Hankala wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > These structures are only used by autoconf(9) and don't need to be
> > modified. Some subsystems already define most of them as 'const'.
> > Diff below turn all the remaining one as such.
> >
> > Only a
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 06:07:01PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 13/02/20(Thu) 16:53, Visa Hankala wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > These structures are only used by autoconf(9) and don't need to be
> > > modified. Some subsystems already
On 13/02/20(Thu) 16:53, Visa Hankala wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > These structures are only used by autoconf(9) and don't need to be
> > modified. Some subsystems already define most of them as 'const'.
> > Diff below turn all the remaining one as
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> These structures are only used by autoconf(9) and don't need to be
> modified. Some subsystems already define most of them as 'const'.
> Diff below turn all the remaining one as such.
>
> Only a single driver, de(4), needed a
