Subject: Re: [PATCH] support for large number of network devices.

From: "David S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:11:55 -0800

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:37:34 -0800
Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]> 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.