On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 01:33:27 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > smatch complains about > > mc13783_adc_probe() error: snprintf() chops off the last chars of > 'id->name': 20 +vs 10 > > Use PLATFORM_NAME_SIZE instead of '10' as size when declaring > the name variable. > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Note that Dan Carpenter had been sending the same patch 19 months ago: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2012-February/035178.html I wasn't sure what to do with it and finally forgot about it, sorry. > --- > drivers/hwmon/mc13783-adc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/mc13783-adc.c b/drivers/hwmon/mc13783-adc.c > index 982d862..ae00e60 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/mc13783-adc.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/mc13783-adc.c > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ > struct mc13783_adc_priv { > struct mc13xxx *mc13xxx; > struct device *hwmon_dev; > - char name[10]; > + char name[PLATFORM_NAME_SIZE]; > }; > > static ssize_t mc13783_adc_show_name(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute I admit I find it a bit sad to allocate more memory than we need just to make a static analyzer happy. Static analyzers are supposed to help developers improve their code, not make it less efficient. That being said, I tried to rewrite the code in a way which was more obviously correct (to a static analyzer), but what I came up with was not very appealing. So if everybody is OK with the simple buffer size fix above, then so am I. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
