I fail to follow you - yes, dev_alloc_name calls sprintf on it, but
sprintf works fine on strings without "%d", and dev_alloc_name also works
fine (despite a little suboptimal).
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 05:48:35PM -0800, Maksim Krasnyanskiy <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >(oh, and after reading the comments int hat file, I think that maybe tun.c
> >simply shouldn't call dev_alloc_name...)
> Hmm, let me check that.
> I was under the assumption that it's dev.c bug :)
well, reading the part again it seems that dev_alloc_name is not "allocating
a name" but just looking for a free one. If it is indeed logically allocating
the devicename then it's a bug in dev.c. If it is just used to find a free
existing name, then it's a bug in tun.c (and elsewhere), in that it simply
shouldn't call dev_alloc_name, but instead allocates the name itself.
my personal opinion is that dev_alloc_name should work, as it would be the
logical place to do this stuff, an abstraction. it could be coded more
efficiently, but it doesn't seem to be a terrible important place anyways.
but I also must admit that I, well, know nothing ;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/