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

[Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:37:34AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger 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?

I think it's probably easier to just add O(1) lookup and then do
explicit lookups on eth0..ethx. As Dave's pointed out, fast lookups
are wanted elsewhere. I made a quick hack to make the sscanf trick
work (try scanning for "eth%d%c" and insisting that %c not get parsed)
but it was not pretty.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting