From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] support for large number of network devices. Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:11:55 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040114121155.7dabd70e.davem@redhat.com> References: <20040113154610.38f5934c.shemminger@osdl.org> <20040113155921.342db463.davem@redhat.com> <20040113161303.20f1159d.shemminger@osdl.org> <20040114071303.GG28521@waste.org> <20040114113734.4e9a0865.shemminger@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mpm@selenic.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20040114113734.4e9a0865.shemminger@osdl.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:37:34 -0800 Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Unfortunately sscanf("eth0-not-allocated", "eth%d", &i) fools it. > > Which may or may not be worth worrying about. > > Hmmm, the old code would have assigned "eth0" in that case, new code > would assign "eth1". Other difference is in the case of whitespace. > scanf("white space0", "white space%d", &i) > because any whitespace matches multiple whitespace characters. > > Is it worth making a separate explicit match routine? My only concern right now is that, since we're in the middle of 2.6.x, we not break semantics of such a core routine like this one. Although I'm willing to accept that certain cases are just rediculious and not worth worrying about, just try your best to create a version of the patch that matches current behavior as best as possible and we'll work from that.