Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, <penberg@...>
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 6:37 pm

Hi,

Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:


Two dirty hacks where gcc at least does not complain:

	void *y = (void *)x;

and then pass y, or passing

	*(void **)&x

directly.

Both approaches seem just too ugly to silence a bogus warning.

	Hannes
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Why is the kfree() argument const?, Johannes Weiner, (Wed Jan 16, 12:32 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Jan 16, 2:39 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Steven Rostedt, (Wed Jan 16, 6:33 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Johannes Weiner, (Wed Jan 16, 6:19 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Jan 16, 7:16 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Christoph Lameter, (Wed Jan 16, 6:20 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Jan 16, 7:18 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Johannes Weiner, (Wed Jan 16, 7:13 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Johannes Weiner, (Wed Jan 16, 6:37 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Christoph Lameter, (Wed Jan 16, 12:48 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Pekka J Enberg, (Wed Jan 16, 1:45 pm)
Re: Why is the kfree() argument const?, Bernd Petrovitsch, (Wed Jan 16, 1:34 pm)