This kind of memcpy() is error-prone. Its replacement with a struct assignment is prefered because it's type-safe and much easier to read. Found by coccinelle. Hand patched and reviewed. Tested by compilation only. A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) // <smpl> @@ identifier struct_name; struct struct_name to; struct struct_name from; expression E; @@ -memcpy(&(to), &(from), E); +to = from; // </smpl> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/media/tuners/xc4000.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/media/tuners/xc4000.c b/drivers/media/tuners/xc4000.c index 4937712..d178dee 100644 --- a/drivers/media/tuners/xc4000.c +++ b/drivers/media/tuners/xc4000.c @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ check_device: goto fail; } - memcpy(&priv->cur_fw, &new_fw, sizeof(priv->cur_fw)); + priv->cur_fw = new_fw; /* * By setting BASE in cur_fw.type only after successfully loading all -- 1.7.4.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
