Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1269498 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] scsi: hpsa: fix multiple issues in path_info_show

Started byRasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
First post2015-11-14 16:30 +0100
Last post2015-11-14 16:30 +0100
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH] scsi: hpsa: fix multiple issues in path_info_show Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> - 2015-11-14 16:30 +0100

#1269498 — Re: [PATCH] scsi: hpsa: fix multiple issues in path_info_show

FromRasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date2015-11-14 16:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scsi: hpsa: fix multiple issues in path_info_show
Message-ID<quKW5-5Jb-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, Oct 28 2015, Don Brace <brace77070@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/27/2015 05:16 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> I'm not familiar with this code, but path_info_show() (added in
>> 8270b86243658 "hpsa: add sysfs entry path_info to show box and
>> bay information") seems to be broken in multiple ways.
>>
[snip]
>>
>> We can fix all of that and get rid of the 400 byte stack buffer by
>> simply writing directly to the given output buffer, which the upper
>> layer guarantees is at least PAGE_SIZE. s[c]nprintf doesn't care where
>> it is writing to, so this doesn't make the spin lock hold time any
>> longer. Using scnprintf ensures that output_len always represents the
>> number of bytes actually written to the buffer, so we'll report the
>> proper amount to the upper layer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
>>
> Thanks, I added this to my current patch set. This patch will be up
> with you as the author soon.

I see it in mainline now. May I ask why 6 out of 7 scnprintfs were
changed (back) to snprintf? I don't think there's any functional
difference as long as PAGE_SIZE is indeed sufficient, but mixing
snprintf and scnprintf is pretty odd, and there's now a discrepancy
between the commit log and the patch which wasn't in my original - I'd
expect a "[use snprintf because xyz]" note added if the change was
intentional.

Rasmus

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web