On 27.09.22 16:27, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2022-09-26 at 19:42 +0100, Jules Irenge wrote: >> Coccinnelle reports a warning >> Warning: Use scnprintf or sprintf >> Adding to that, there has been a slow migration from snprintf to scnprintf. >> This LWN article explains the rationale for this change >> https: //lwn.net/Articles/69419/ >> Ie. snprintf() returns what *would* be the resulting length, >> while scnprintf() returns the actual length. > [] >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_sys.c b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_sys.c > [] >> @@ -500,9 +500,9 @@ static ssize_t qeth_hw_trap_show(struct device *dev, >> struct qeth_card *card = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> >> if (card->info.hwtrap) >> - return snprintf(buf, 5, "arm\n"); >> + return scnprintf(buf, 5, "arm\n"); >> else >> - return snprintf(buf, 8, "disarm\n"); >> + return scnprintf(buf, 8, "disarm\n"); >> } > > Use sysfs_emit instead. > Thank you Joe, that sounds like the best way to handle this. I propose that I take this onto my ToDo list and test it in the s390 environment. I will add Reported-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@xxxxxxxxx> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
