On 28/10/2024 4:12 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.10.2024 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 28/10/2024 4:03 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> As with 9cbf61445cda ("xen/earlycpio: Drop nextoff parameter"): While
>>> this is imported from Linux, the parameter not being pointer-to-const is
>>> dubious in the first place and we're not plausibly going to gain a write
>>> through it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>> You haven't tried compiling this, have you?
> Of course I have. Is there any subtlety with compiler versions? Or what
> else am I missing?struct cpio_data's copy of this field is non-const (which you keep on noting that new compilers will object to), and you can't change that without breaking the build in microcode. Nothing of this form can be taken until the constness is consistent in microcode, after which yes it can mostly become const. ~Andrew
