> > >> > > >> +#include <rte_string_fns.h> > > >> + > > >> #include "bcm_osal.h" > > >> #include "ecore.h" > > >> #include "ecore_spq.h" > > >> @@ -1104,9 +1106,9 @@ static enum _ecore_status_t > > >> ecore_int_deassertion(struct ecore_hwfn *p_hwfn, > > >> > > >> p_aeu->bit_name, > > >> num); > > >> else > > >> - OSAL_STRNCPY(bit_name, > > >> - > > >> p_aeu->bit_name, > > >> - 30); > > >> + strlcpy(bit_name, > > >> + p_aeu->bit_name, > > >> + > > >> sizeof(bit_name)); > > >> > > >> /* We now need to pass bitmask > > >> in its > > >> * correct position. > > > > > > I'd say it should be better to change OSAL_STRNCPY to OSAL_STRLCPY > > > and modify the macro to use strlcpy, so we avoid further uses of that > > > strlcpy. > > > > > > However, this modifies base driver code, so it is up to the > > > maintainers to make > > that decision. > > > (CC'ing maintainers here). > > > > There's no value for any OSAL_* that simply defines itself to be the > > same as the direct api, as does OSAL_STRNCPY. > > > > It's better to just remove any OSAL_* that calls straight through > > since all it does is obfuscate what the code does, for no benefit. > > I agree. Since this is modifying base driver code, the maintainers can decide > what to do with this.
Hi, For this series, you can continue with s/OSAL_STRNCPY/strlcpy/ for this instance. I will send a patch to cleanup OSAL_* once your series gets applied. Thanks, Shahed
