Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:25:12 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
To: Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@gmail.com>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Larry Finger <larry.finger@lwfinger.net>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	Monakhov Dmitriy <dmonakhov@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1
Message-ID: <20070328102512.56ecd00a@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070328012635.GC18799@zenigma>
References: <4602752A.5050109@lwfinger.net>
	<20070322181019.62fe78ed@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
	<4602D137.4060402@lwfinger.net>
	<20070323111029.4089ccfb@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
	<20070323210618.6a41f5da.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20070326110949.5301a571@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
	<20070326012232.0f0b9e09.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20070326103432.GB18799@zenigma>
	<3ae72650703270225k1db9c4a8w6e31b95e007336d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070327191749.28298069@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
	<20070328012635.GC18799@zenigma>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:26:35 +0200,
Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@gmail.com> wrote:

> The reason for that original patch was that it is actually possible for the
> uevent functions to return -ENOMEM, the uevent buffer being statically
> allocated to BUFFER_SIZE (2048).

So maybe -ENOMEM should still be propagated? We just don't want to fail
device_add because of it.

> It used to be 1024 but that was not
> always enough and it was doubled a while ago [1]. Using add_uevent_var()
> makes this less of a problem as such an overflow should be catched
> cleanly [2].

Reminds me that I need to look into ccw_uevent :)