From: dmg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: 18 June 2019 00:31 > Use min_t to find the minimum of two values instead of using the ?: operator. > > This change does not alter functionality. It is merely cosmetic intended to > improve the readability of the code. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel M German <dmg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_ether.c | 2 +- > drivers/usb/misc/adutux.c | 2 +- > drivers/usb/storage/realtek_cr.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_ether.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_ether.c > index 737bd77a575d..f6ba46684ddb 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_ether.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_ether.c > @@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ int gether_get_ifname(struct net_device *net, char *name, int len) > rtnl_lock(); > ret = snprintf(name, len, "%s\n", netdev_name(net)); > rtnl_unlock(); > - return ret < len ? ret : len; > + return min_t(int, ret, len); > } I'm not sure using min() or min_t() helps readability here. In any case that code fragment looks broken! Were buf[] too small the length returned would include a '\0'. Now it is quite likely that the overflow is actually impossible (provided buf[] has room for the '\n'). OTOH the 'correct' fix is to replace the snprintf() with scnprintf() and remove the 'min()' completely. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
