On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 17:15 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:

Hello Dan,

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:47:59AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:

quoted

By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.

In this patch, the name of the hso rfkill interface embed the value
of a counter that is incremented each time a new rfkill interface is
added.

Suggested-by: Dan Williams <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Olivier Sobrie <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/usb/hso.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
index c14fc80..d31a165 100644
--- a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
+++ b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c

@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ struct hso_net {
 	struct hso_device *parent;
 	struct net_device *net;
 	struct rfkill *rfkill;
-	char name[8];
+	char name[24];
 
 	struct usb_endpoint_descriptor *in_endp;
 	struct usb_endpoint_descriptor *out_endp;

@@ -2469,9 +2469,10 @@ static void hso_create_rfkill(struct hso_device *hso_dev,
 {
 	struct hso_net *hso_net = dev2net(hso_dev);
 	struct device *dev = &hso_net->net->dev;
+	static u32 rfkill_counter;

It'll probably be initialized to 0, but still, it would feel safer with
an explicit "rfkill_counter = 0"...

If I set explicitly rfkill_counter = 0, checkpatch triggers an error:

  ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL
  #36: FILE: drivers/net/usb/hso.c:2472:
  +	static u32 rfkill_counter = 0;

Well OK then, life has changed since I last submitted a patch with a
static variable :)  If checkpatch complains, then it is almost always
correct, and you can ignore me.

Dan