Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264394AbUATFHP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:07:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264405AbUATFHP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:07:15 -0500 Received: from gw.mgpenguin.net ([150.101.216.218]:16264 "EHLO mail.mgpenguin.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264394AbUATFHO (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:07:14 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040120160408.00b184f8@mail.mgpenguin.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:07:12 +1100 To: Greg KH From: Kieran Morrissey Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.1: Update PCI Name database, fix gen-devlist.c for long device names. Cc: Martin Mares , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20040120013042.GG6309@kroah.com> References: <20040117103859.GA2185@ucw.cz> <5.1.0.14.2.20040115140515.00af1318@mail.mgpenguin.net> <20040117103859.GA2185@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5BE930BD; boundary="=======5C1D45DA=======" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1498 Lines: 39 --=======5C1D45DA======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5BE930BD; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 05:30 PM 19/01/2004 -0800, you wrote: >On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:39:00AM +0100, Martin Mares wrote: >> Hello! >> >> > * Updates pci.ids with a snapshot from http://pciids.sourceforge.net/ as at >> > 14 Jan 04. >> > * Fixes gen-devlist.c to truncate long device names rather than reject the >> > whole database >> > (previously the latest databases had some devices that were too long and >> > caused a kernel with the latest db to fail to compile) >> >> I think it would be better to increase the name length limit, the long entries >> really have useful information at the end :) > >That's probably a good idea. Kieran, care to make up a patch to do >this? > >thanks, > >greg k-h Done (see other message).. but does anyone know why the name size limit was introduced in 2.5? Saving memory? (all of 30-odd bytes per device, say 480 bytes in an average system? seems silly to reduce functionality that much to achieve such a tiny space saving; I mean it's understandable perhaps on an embedded system, but you wouldn't be compiling the database in then :) Cheers Kieran --=======5C1D45DA=======-- - 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/