From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>
Cc: wharms@bfs.de, "Mark A. Grondona" <mgrondona@llnl.gov>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] edac: sb_edac: add sanity check to silence static checker
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:59:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101135945.GA4682@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EAFEBBE.3070604@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:53:18AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> >> @@ -970,6 +970,12 @@ static int get_memory_error_data(struct mem_ctl_info *mci,
> >> break;
> >> prv = limit;
> >> }
> >> + if (n_tads == MAX_TAD) {
> >> + sprintf(msg, "Could not discover the memory channel");
> >
> > why the sprintf() ? can you not simply:
> > edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci,"Could not discover the memory channel");
>
> Yes, please us the edac-specific call. I'm working on some patches that will
> provide an additional functionality to those edac report calls. So, using
> sprintf() won't do the right thing after applying those patches (likely for
> Kernel v3.3).
>
I did use the edac-specific call. Walter is saying that the
sprintf() is not needed because I could just pass the string
directly. That's true enough, but I'd prefer to leave it how I wrote
it so it matches everything else in this file. Also passing it
directly as edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci,"Could not discover the memory channel");
makes the line too long for the 80 character limit so someone will
complain if I do that. This isn't a fast path so the sprintf()
doesn't hurt anything.
Also looking at it now, I suspect this patch might be a bug fix
instead of just to silence the warning. We have a similar check for
the MAX_SAD loop earlier to the check that I added here for MAX_TAD.
regards,
dan carpenter
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>
Cc: wharms@bfs.de, "Mark A. Grondona" <mgrondona@llnl.gov>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] edac: sb_edac: add sanity check to silence static checker
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:59:45 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111101135945.GA4682@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EAFEBBE.3070604@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:53:18AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
> >> @@ -970,6 +970,12 @@ static int get_memory_error_data(struct mem_ctl_info *mci,
> >> break;
> >> prv = limit;
> >> }
> >> + if (n_tads == MAX_TAD) {
> >> + sprintf(msg, "Could not discover the memory channel");
> >
> > why the sprintf() ? can you not simply:
> > edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci,"Could not discover the memory channel");
>
> Yes, please us the edac-specific call. I'm working on some patches that will
> provide an additional functionality to those edac report calls. So, using
> sprintf() won't do the right thing after applying those patches (likely for
> Kernel v3.3).
>
I did use the edac-specific call. Walter is saying that the
sprintf() is not needed because I could just pass the string
directly. That's true enough, but I'd prefer to leave it how I wrote
it so it matches everything else in this file. Also passing it
directly as edac_mc_handle_ce_no_info(mci,"Could not discover the memory channel");
makes the line too long for the 80 character limit so someone will
complain if I do that. This isn't a fast path so the sprintf()
doesn't hurt anything.
Also looking at it now, I suspect this patch might be a bug fix
instead of just to silence the warning. We have a similar check for
the MAX_SAD loop earlier to the check that I added here for MAX_TAD.
regards,
dan carpenter
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-01 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-01 6:28 [patch] edac: sb_edac: add sanity check to silence static checker Dan Carpenter
2011-11-01 6:28 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-11-01 12:32 ` walter harms
2011-11-01 12:32 ` walter harms
2011-11-01 12:53 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2011-11-01 12:53 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2011-11-01 13:59 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2011-11-01 13:59 ` Dan Carpenter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111101135945.GA4682@mwanda \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@redhat.com \
--cc=mgrondona@llnl.gov \
--cc=wharms@bfs.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.