Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:46:17 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.31 driverfs: patch for your consideration |
| |
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:32:30PM +0000, Adam Belay wrote: > Also after looking at the interface code I realized that not just my > code used sprintf. Do you think they should all use snprintf instead > or is the probability of a driver attribute exceeding the one page > buffer size so low that it doesn't matter?
snprintf is always a good idea to be using.
> Also I was wondering if you think resource management variables (irq, > io, dma, etc) should live in the device structure like power management > variables do?
Lots of different devices do not have irq, io, and dma assigned to them (like every USB device). These values should be on a per-bus type (i.e. most pci devices _do_ have those types of values.
> Global resource management seams interesting to me, although there > already is a proc interface that does list resources, I'm wondering if > the driver model is a good place to put such an interface?
Yes it is a good place to put them, as almost every /proc file that does not deal with processes will eventually be moving to this fs.
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
| |