Am 25.02.2016 08:47, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> It's simpler to just use snprintf() to print this to one buffer instead
> of using strcpy() and strcat(). Also using snprintf() is slightly safer
> than using sprintf().
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
> index 9f8cfaa..d6b0bff 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
> @@ -240,12 +240,10 @@ static int acp_poweron(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> static struct device *get_mfd_cell_dev(const char *device_name, int r)
> {
> char auto_dev_name[25];
> - char buf[8];
> struct device *dev;
>
> - sprintf(buf, ".%d.auto", r);
> - strcpy(auto_dev_name, device_name);
> - strcat(auto_dev_name, buf);
> + snprintf(auto_dev_name, sizeof(auto_dev_name),
> + "%s.%d.auto", device_name, r);
> dev = bus_find_device_by_name(&platform_bus_type, NULL, auto_dev_name);
> dev_info(dev, "device %s added to pm domain\n", auto_dev_name);
>
hi,
i tried to understand what is the base for char auto_dev_name[25]. It is not clear
from these snipped if that is large or small.
(To be aware i assume that
get_mfd_cell_dev("terrible_long_and_Stupid_name",1234567899346712) will never happen
but i could find no reason)
A small comment that explains the magic 25 would be nice.
re,
wh
--
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
