Hi Masahiro,
On 28 September 2014 07:52, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
if (strncmp(name, entry->name, len)) continue; /* Full match */ if (len == strlen(entry->name)) return entry;is equivalent to:
if (!strcmp(name, entry->name)) return entry;The latter is simpler.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com
drivers/core/lists.c | 9 +-------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/core/lists.c b/drivers/core/lists.c index 699f94b..3a1ea85 100644 --- a/drivers/core/lists.c +++ b/drivers/core/lists.c @@ -24,19 +24,12 @@ struct driver *lists_driver_lookup_name(const char *name) ll_entry_start(struct driver, driver); const int n_ents = ll_entry_count(struct driver, driver); struct driver *entry;
int len; if (!drv || !n_ents) return NULL;len = strlen(name);for (entry = drv; entry != drv + n_ents; entry++) {if (strncmp(name, entry->name, len))continue;/* Full match */if (len == strlen(entry->name))
if (!strcmp(name, entry->name)) return entry; }
The discussion on this was here:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-September/189336.html
I don't see a lot of value in the extra code, so I think we should take this patch. If it is found to be a problem, we can go back to the defensive code and add a test case so it is clear what exactly we are defending against.
Acked-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Regards, Simon