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/
