On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:12:59AM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:27:57 +0200, Peter Postma wrote:
> 
> > Index: hpc/hpckbd.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/dev/hpc/hpckbd.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.17
> > diff -u -r1.17 hpckbd.c
> > --- hpc/hpckbd.c	29 Mar 2006 06:37:35 -0000	1.17
> > +++ hpc/hpckbd.c	11 Jul 2006 23:23:14 -0000
> > @@ -267,15 +267,7 @@
> >  	int i;
> >  	struct wscons_keydesc *desc;
> >  
> > -	/* fix keydesc table */
> > -	/* 
> > -	 * XXX The way this is done is really wrong.  The __UNCONST()
> > -	 * is a hint as to what is wrong.  This actually ends up modifying
> > -	 * initialized data which is marked "const".
> > -	 * The reason we get away with it here is apparently that text
> > -	 * and read-only data gets mapped read/write on the platforms
> > -	 * using this code.
> > -	 */
> > +	/* fix keydesc table, the UNCONST is "OK". */
> >  	desc = (struct wscons_keydesc *)__UNCONST(hpckbd_keymapdata.keydesc);
> >  	for (i = 0; desc[i].name != 0; i++) {
> >  		if ((desc[i].name & KB_MACHDEP) && desc[i].map == NULL) {
> 
> If you drop const from teh array, you don't need __UNCONST (and the
> comment) here.
> 

But the "keydesc" member in struct wskbd_mapdata is marked as const,
so the compiler will warn if this __UNCONST is removed. I'm not sure
if it's a good idea to remove that const from the member.

-- 
Peter Postma