On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:09:39AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 08:47:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Dmitry, > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:31:32PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > When copying memory from one buffer to another, instead of open-coding > > > loops with byte-by-byte copies let's use memcpy() which might be a bit > > > faster and makes intent more clear. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - new patch using memcpy() for moving data around > > > > > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c | 15 +++++---------- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c > > > index 7b4e2270eeda1..bbafdd3b1b114 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c > > > @@ -397,8 +397,7 @@ static s32 i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, u16 addr, > > > } > > > > > > i2c_smbus_try_get_dmabuf(&msg[0], command); > > > - for (i = 1; i < msg[0].len; i++) > > > - msg[0].buf[i] = data->block[i - 1]; > > > + memcpy(msg[0].buf + 1, data->block, msg[0].len - 1); > > > > Can it happen that msg[0].len is zero? > > No, it can not, because of the "msg[0].len = data->block[0] + 2;" line > above. OK, and as passing data with data->block[0] = 254 also makes the code do strange things already without your patch. I now also checked the other conversions for similar problems and didn't find any. So: Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
