From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753434AbYIWQRL (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751553AbYIWQQz (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:16:55 -0400 Received: from smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.29]:1696 "EHLO smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751515AbYIWQQy (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:16:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:14:35 +0200 From: Mark de Wever To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: petkovbb@gmail.com, Gadi Oxman , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE-TAPE NULL terminate strings. Message-ID: <20080923161434.GA4444@localhost> References: <20080921185138.GA16310@localhost> <48D79ABD.8060805@ru.mvista.com> <9ea470500809220656j6dfcf4c9q7a5a4185481ec994@mail.gmail.com> <20080922204129.GA3495@localhost> <48D80949.4080901@ru.mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48D80949.4080901@ru.mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:08:25AM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c >> index 1bce84b..c41f5b1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c >> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c >> @@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static void idetape_get_inquiry_results(ide_drive_t *drive) >> { >> idetape_tape_t *tape = drive->driver_data; >> struct ide_atapi_pc pc; >> - char fw_rev[6], vendor_id[10], product_id[18]; >> + char fw_rev[6] = {'\0'}, vendor_id[10] = {'\0'}, product_id[18] = {'\0'}; >> > > Do you realize how much *absolutely unnecessary* code will this bring > in? I did not, I just had a look at the code GCC produced. I did expect much smaller code, but maybe that's only generated with -Os. > This is certainly worse than your initial patch (if it was correct). My initial patch did work, but that doesn't matter much, since Boris posted another patch based on your suggestions. I like that patch better as my initial patch. I'm testing it now and I expect it to work. Regards, Mark de Wever