From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755304Ab1HYVIv (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:08:51 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:55490 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753627Ab1HYVIu (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:08:50 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: OXpgYZLc8iEU3T8NLw/ydeXJdqkCZwmCAVQ9a8p7HRRZ 1314306528 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:59:30 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "K. Y. Srinivasan" Cc: gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Haiyang Zhang Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/59] Staging: hv: vmbus: Cleanup vmbus_uevent() code Message-ID: <20110825205930.GA10883@kroah.com> References: <1314290866-2644-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <1314290965-2698-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> <1314290965-2698-12-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314290965-2698-12-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 09:48:38AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > Now generate appropriate uevent based on the modalias string. As part of this, > cleanup the existing uevent code. > > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan > Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang > --- > drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_drv.c | 60 ++++++++-------------------------------- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_drv.c b/drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_drv.c > index b651968..a6e7dc5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/vmbus_drv.c > @@ -237,58 +237,22 @@ static struct device_attribute vmbus_device_attrs[] = { > * This routine is invoked when a device is added or removed on the vmbus to > * generate a uevent to udev in the userspace. The udev will then look at its > * rule and the uevent generated here to load the appropriate driver > + * > + * The alias string will be of the form vmbus:guid where guid is the string > + * representation of the device guid (each byte of the guid will be > + * represented with two hex characters. > */ > static int vmbus_uevent(struct device *device, struct kobj_uevent_env *env) > { > struct hv_device *dev = device_to_hv_device(device); > - int ret; > - > - ret = add_uevent_var(env, "VMBUS_DEVICE_CLASS_GUID={" > - "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-" > - "%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x}", > - dev->dev_type.b[3], > - dev->dev_type.b[2], > - dev->dev_type.b[1], > - dev->dev_type.b[0], > - dev->dev_type.b[5], > - dev->dev_type.b[4], > - dev->dev_type.b[7], > - dev->dev_type.b[6], > - dev->dev_type.b[8], > - dev->dev_type.b[9], > - dev->dev_type.b[10], > - dev->dev_type.b[11], > - dev->dev_type.b[12], > - dev->dev_type.b[13], > - dev->dev_type.b[14], > - dev->dev_type.b[15]); > - > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + int i, ret; > + char alias_name[((sizeof(struct hv_vmbus_device_id) + 1)) * 2]; > > - ret = add_uevent_var(env, "VMBUS_DEVICE_DEVICE_GUID={" > - "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-" > - "%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x}", > - dev->dev_instance.b[3], > - dev->dev_instance.b[2], > - dev->dev_instance.b[1], > - dev->dev_instance.b[0], > - dev->dev_instance.b[5], > - dev->dev_instance.b[4], > - dev->dev_instance.b[7], > - dev->dev_instance.b[6], > - dev->dev_instance.b[8], > - dev->dev_instance.b[9], > - dev->dev_instance.b[10], > - dev->dev_instance.b[11], > - dev->dev_instance.b[12], > - dev->dev_instance.b[13], > - dev->dev_instance.b[14], > - dev->dev_instance.b[15]); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + for (i = 0; i < (sizeof(struct hv_vmbus_device_id) * 2); i += 2) > + sprintf(&alias_name[i], "%02x", dev->dev_type.b[i/2]); I have to edit this to get it to work properly with the fact that I added the driver_data field to hv_vmbus_device_id. Arguably, one could say that this patch was always broken as you were assuming the size of an individual field was the same size as the whole structure, which I don't think is always the case, or at least it's not a safe thing to assume :) thanks, greg k-h