On 2022/02/09 12:16, Damien Le Moal wrote: > 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 "); Oops. You did have that one listed... Read too quickly... > > too :) > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
