On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:13:58PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:52:13AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

> Ok, I can add an explanation, why the name changes are necessary.

Please do split it into a separate patch.

> > I suspect we should be using kstrdup()...

> I wouldn't. It would add one more kmalloc(), which is avoided with my 
> approach, then it would make a memcpy(), which we also don't need, because 
> we have to print the id into the string.

This is because you've decided to go and select a particular set of
names for the supplies rather than letting people configure them which
again isn't 100% obvious...