linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Removed unnecessary varibles

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7526f0a3-b8bb-f751-50f9-4e71316178e0@perex.cz>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:12:44 +0200
From:   Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Adam <developer@...sty.dev>, bkkarthik@...u.pes.edu,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: pnp: proc.c: Removed unnecessary varibles

Dne 23. 04. 21 v 23:08 Shuah Khan napsal(a):
> On 4/22/21 12:03 PM, Anupama K Patil wrote:
>> de, e are two variables of the type 'struct proc_dir_entry'
>> which can be removed to save memory. This also fixes a coding style
>> issue reported by checkpatch where we are suggested to make assignment
>> outside the if statement.
>>
> 
> Sounds like a reasonable change.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Anupama K Patil <anupamakpatil123@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c | 13 ++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
>> index 785a796430fa..1ae458c02656 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pnp/isapnp/proc.c
>> @@ -57,21 +57,20 @@ static const struct proc_ops isapnp_proc_bus_proc_ops = {
>>   static int isapnp_proc_attach_device(struct pnp_dev *dev)
>>   {
>>   	struct pnp_card *bus = dev->card;
>> -	struct proc_dir_entry *de, *e;
>>   	char name[16];
>>   
>> -	if (!(de = bus->procdir)) {
>> +	if (!bus->procdir) {
>>   		sprintf(name, "%02x", bus->number);
> 
> It would make sense to change this to scnprintf()

The name is 16 bytes, so sprintf is safe here.

					Jaroslav

-- 
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>
Linux Sound Maintainer; ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.