Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <ea00dcab-e4f6-f672-e754-9ddec67da83d@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:14:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] scsi: Convert snprintf() to scnprintf()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>, jejb@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <YzHyC191CIXZSfc5@fedora>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <YzHyC191CIXZSfc5@fedora>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/26/22 11:40, Jules Irenge wrote:
> Coccinnelle reports a warning
> Warning: Use scnprintf or sprintf
> Adding to that, there has been a slow migration from snprintf to scnprintf.
> This LWN article explains the rationale for this change
> https: //lwn.net/Articles/69419/
> Ie. snprintf() returns what *would* be the resulting length,
> while scnprintf() returns the actual length.

Isn't using snprintf() or scnprintf() inside sysfs show callbacks 
considered deprecated?

Thanks,

Bart.