Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:56 +0200,
> "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@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?


> Sounds like a sensible approach. We may want the remaining non-users to
> add_uevent_var() at the same time, I guess.
> 

Thanks,
Pavel