On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:21:51 +0400,
Pavel Emelyanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
But the function wants to know the buffer_size, doesn't it?
(And the caller can make the adjustments easily; it saves duplicated
code.)
-
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]
