Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:56 +0200,
"Kay Sievers" <[email protected]> wrote:
But we still don't update the remaining buffer size and the remaining
array fields which are left after the call. Shouldn't we instead just
change the:
int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
char **envp, int num_envp,
char *buffer, int buffer_size);
to:
int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
char **envp, int num_envp, int *cur_index,
char *buffer, int buffer_size, int *cur_len);
like we do for:
int add_uevent_var(char **envp, int num_envp, int *cur_index,
char *buffer, int buffer_size, int *cur_len,
const char *format, ...)
and along with the change of the callers, we would update the values
properly, so the next call has the correct numbers? There are 6
classes and something like 12 buses using this method, so it shouldn't
be too much trouble.
isn't it better to change
int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
char **envp, int num_envp,
char *buffer, int buffer_size);
to
int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
char **envp, int num_envp,
char **buffer);
and alter the buffer pointer inside?
Sounds like a sensible approach. We may want the remaining non-users to
add_uevent_var() at the same time, I guess.
Thanks,
Pavel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
