Hi Markus, 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. -- Jean Delvare - 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/