Re: [PATCH 3/4] libmultipath/datacore: Remove dead code

From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>,
	Christophe Varoqui <christophe.varoqui@opensvc.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] libmultipath/datacore: Remove dead code
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:31:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1497382290.4654.50.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170613163339.23005-4-bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>

On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 09:33 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Remove those variables a value is assigned to but that are never
> used. This patch avoids that gcc 7 reports the following warning:
> 
> datacore.c:98:22: warning: '
>    ' directive output may be truncated writing 1 byte into a region
> of size between 0 and 8 [-Wformat-truncation=]
>   snprintf(vendor, 8, "%.8s\n", inqBuffp + 8);
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
> ---
>  libmultipath/prioritizers/datacore.c | 10 +---------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/libmultipath/prioritizers/datacore.c
> b/libmultipath/prioritizers/datacore.c
> index 36465ac4..59c98164 100644
> --- a/libmultipath/prioritizers/datacore.c
> +++ b/libmultipath/prioritizers/datacore.c
> @@ -35,10 +35,6 @@
>  int datacore_prio (const char *dev, int sg_fd, char * args)
>  {
>  	int k;
> -	char vendor[8];
> -	char product[32];
> -	char luname[32];
> -	char wwpn[32];
>  	char sdsname[32];
>  	unsigned char inqCmdBlk[INQ_CMD_LEN] = { INQ_CMD_CODE, 0, 0,
> 0, INQ_REPLY_LEN, 0 };
>  	unsigned char inqBuff[INQ_REPLY_LEN];
> @@ -95,11 +91,7 @@ int datacore_prio (const char *dev, int sg_fd,
> char * args)
>  	if ((io_hdr.info & SG_INFO_OK_MASK) != SG_INFO_OK)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	snprintf(vendor, 8, "%.8s\n", inqBuffp + 8);
> -	snprintf(product, 17, "%.16s", inqBuffp + 16);
> -	snprintf(luname, 21, "%.19s", inqBuffp + 36);
> -	snprintf(wwpn, 17, "%.16s", inqBuffp + 96);
> -	snprintf(sdsname, 17, "%.16s", inqBuffp + 112);
> +	snprintf(sdsname, sizeof(sdsname), "%.16s", inqBuffp + 112);
>  
>  	if (strstr(sdsname , preferredsds))
>  		return 1;

I was wondering whether passing sizeof(sdsname) rather than 17 might
make a difference, and verified that that isn't the case.

Reviewed-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>

-- 
Dr. Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel