On 8/14/07, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:20:43 +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > I would prefer if we use "firmware-%s" since the "fw" might collide with > > > the new Firewire stack. Please change that and I agree. > > > > firmware-%s sounds more informative and cannot be mistaken with firewire > > yes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > http://mcentral.de/~mrec/patches/firmware_class_name_collision_2.diff > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > > index b24efd4..bfc54a1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c > > @@ -297,8 +297,7 @@ firmware_class_timeout(u_long data) > > > > static inline void fw_setup_device_id(struct device *f_dev, struct > > device *dev) > > { > > - /* XXX warning we should watch out for name collisions */ > > - strlcpy(f_dev->bus_id, dev->bus_id, BUS_ID_SIZE); > > + snprintf(f_dev->bus_id, BUS_ID_SIZE, "firmware-%s", dev->bus_id); > > } > > Please keep in mind that BUS_ID_SIZE is "only" 20. "firmware-" takes 9 > characters, add one for the trailing zero and this only leaves room for > 10 characters for the original bus id. While this will be enough for > the i2c case, I suspect that some other bus IDs won't fit.
Hmm, is there any case where .bus_id is different from .kobj.k_name? We always do: kobject_set_name(&dev->kobj, "%s", dev->bus_id); Which looks kind of weird, as the kobject (which doesn't have that name size limitation) is always embedded in the same struct anyway. Thanks, Kay - 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/
