why can't we add two rules with the same 'NAME=' ?
Hi Greg,
why can't we add any valid config device to the list?
Since we support pattern matching it seems a bit confusing to the user.
Is it a leftover from the former permissions update code, that is now in it's own function?
Do i miss something?
Kay
namedev.c +1 -22
@@ -103,31 +103,10 @@int add_config_dev (struct config_device *new_dev) { -struct list_head *tmp;struct config_device *tmp_dev; -/* update the values if we already have the device */ -list_for_each (tmp, &config_device_list) { - struct config_device *dev = list_entry(tmp, struct config_device, node); -if (strcmp_pattern (new_dev->name, dev->name)) -continue ; -if (strncmp (dev->bus, new_dev->bus,sizeof (dev->name))) -continue ; -copy_var (dev, new_dev, type); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, bus); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, sysfs_file); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, sysfs_value); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, id); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, place); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, kernel_name); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, exec_program); -copy_string (dev, new_dev, symlink); -return 0 ; - } - -/* not found, add new structure to the device list */ tmp_dev =malloc (sizeof (*tmp_dev)); -if (!tmp_dev) +if (tmp_dev ==NULL )return -ENOMEM ;memcpy (tmp_dev, new_dev,sizeof (*tmp_dev));list_add_tail (&tmp_dev->node, &config_device_list);