Hello Dan,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:47:59AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
> > By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
> > have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
> >
> > In this patch, the name of the hso rfkill interface embed the value
> > of a counter that is incremented each time a new rfkill interface is
> > added.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Dan Williams <d...@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Olivier Sobrie <oliv...@sobrie.be>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/usb/hso.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
> > index c14fc80..d31a165 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
> > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ struct hso_net {
> > struct hso_device *parent;
> > struct net_device *net;
> > struct rfkill *rfkill;
> > - char name[8];
> > + char name[24];
> >
> > struct usb_endpoint_descriptor *in_endp;
> > struct usb_endpoint_descriptor *out_endp;
> > @@ -2469,9 +2469,10 @@ static void hso_create_rfkill(struct hso_device
> > *hso_dev,
> > {
> > struct hso_net *hso_net = dev2net(hso_dev);
> > struct device *dev = &hso_net->net->dev;
> > + static u32 rfkill_counter;
>
> It'll probably be initialized to 0, but still, it would feel safer with
> an explicit "rfkill_counter = 0"...
>
If I set explicitly rfkill_counter = 0, checkpatch triggers an error:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL
#36: FILE: drivers/net/usb/hso.c:2472:
+ static u32 rfkill_counter = 0;
Olivier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
