[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070810143927.619d0640@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:39:27 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: "Pavel Emelyanov" <xemul@...nvz.org>, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in show_uevent()
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:56 +0200,
"Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org> 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.
Sounds like a sensible approach. We may want the remaining non-users to
add_uevent_var() at the same time, I guess.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists