[stgt] [PATCH 02/13] mem_copy_n32: safe memcpy, accumulates copied count, tracks remaining space

[FUJITA Tomonori]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:16:23 +0200
Alexander Nezhinsky <nezhinsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:39 AM, FUJITA Tomonori
> <fujita.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Alexander Nezhinsky <nezhinsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For example, please see build_mode_page() usage pattern.
> 
>> I already read that code. Why you can't simply do something like:
>> actual_len = mem_copy_n32(data, hdr, hdr_size,
>>                           remain_len);
>> *avail_len += hdr_size;
>>
>> mem_copy_n32 unconditionally adds src_len to avail_len. I don't see
>> any point of doing that in mem_copy_n32().
> 
> Well, i can do it either way.
> 
> Then we are left with this:
>>> int spc_memcpy(uint8_t *dst, uint8_t *src, uint32_t src_len, uint32_t
>>> *remain_len)
>>> {
>>>         int copy_len = min_t(uint32_t, *remain_len, src_len);
>>>         if (copy_len) {
>>>                 memcpy(dst, src, copy_len);
>>>                 *remain_len -= copy_len;
>>>         }
>>>         return copy_len;
>>> }

int spc_memcpy(uint8_t *dst, uint32_t dst_len, uint8_t *src, uint32_t src_len)

Looks more normal.

This is not about spc only? If so, I think that it's should be a
different name.


> As such changes affect the entire patchset, I'd prefer to finalize all
> decisions before resending, especially regrading names, locations etc.
> 
> Is it ok as appears above?
> 
> Also regarding the other function:
>>> what about safe_set_byte(...) ?
>>> i'd leave it in utils.c, but we can move to spc.c as well
> 
> Do you have other comments?

My question is that there is any possiblity that this is used by other
than mod_sense? If it's only about mod_sense, then please use more
explict name.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html