On 2022/02/09 12:12, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 11:36 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 2/9/22 09:40, davidcomponentone@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Yang Guang <yang.guang5@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> coccinelle report: >>> ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c:1433:8-16: >>> WARNING: use scnprintf or sprintf >>> ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c:1369:9-17: >>> WARNING: use scnprintf or sprintf >>> ./drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c:1479:8-16: >>> WARNING: use scnprintf or sprintf >>> >>> Use sysfs_emit instead of scnprintf or sprintf makes more sense. > [] >>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_scsi.c > [] >>> @@ -1366,9 +1366,9 @@ csio_show_hw_state(struct device *dev, >>> struct csio_hw *hw = csio_lnode_to_hw(ln); >>> >>> if (csio_is_hw_ready(hw)) >>> - return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "ready\n"); >>> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "ready\n"); >>> else >>> - return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "not ready\n"); >>> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "not ready\n"); >> >> While at it, you could remove the useless "else" above. > > Or not. It's fine as is. It's just a style preference. It is. I dislike the useless line of code in this case :) > > Another style option would be to use a ?: like any of > > return sysfs_emit(buf, "%sready\n", csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "" : "not "); > or > return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "ready" : "not ready"); > or > return sysfs_emit(buf, csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "ready\n" : "not ready\n"); That is nice and can make that return sysfs_emit(buf, "%sready\n", csio_is_hw_ready(hw) ? "" : "not "); too :) -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
