[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in show_uevent()
Cornelia Huck
cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com
Fri Aug 10 06:37:28 PDT 2007
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:21:51 +0400,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul at openvz.org> wrote:
> Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:56 +0200,
> > "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers at vrfy.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.
>
> 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.)
More information about the Devel
mailing list