Hi, On 5/28/23 09:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 8:54 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 5/27/23 18:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 6:51 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/26f37e19-c240-4d77-831d-ef3f1a4dd51d@kili.mountain/ >>> >>> Is this a new official tag? (Just to my surprise) >> >> Yes, I was surprised too, checkpatch.pl now wants a Closes: tag >> after a Reported-by: one, rather then a Link: tag. > > Interesting... > > ... > >>>> - char val[CFG_VAR_NAME_MAX]; >>>> - size_t len = sizeof(val); >>>> + char val[CFG_VAR_NAME_MAX + 1]; >>>> + size_t len = CFG_VAR_NAME_MAX; >>> >>> Why not sizeof() - 1? At least it will be a single point when change >>> can be made and not breaking again in a similar way the code. >> >> I wanted to make the buffer one byte bigger to make room for >> the terminating 0, not 1 bute smaller. > > I understand, and I'm commenting only on the len assignment. Sorry for > not being clear. > > Hence you will have > > buf[SIZE + 1]; > sizeof(buf) - 1; That is just ugly IMHO, why take the sizeof something which we know is SIZE + 1 and then substract 1 instead of just writing SIZE ? Note that for any future SIZE define changes both methods are equally future proof in that they both automatically adjust to the define changing. Regards, Hans
