Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v5 iwl-next] i40e: Use correct buffer size in i40e_dbg_command_read

[Tony Nguyen]

On 12/19/2023 5:32 PM, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> On 12/17/2023 9:54 PM, Pucha, HimasekharX Reddy wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf 
> > > Of Kunwu Chan
> > > Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v5 iwl-next] i40e: Use correct 
> > > buffer size in i40e_dbg_command_read
> > >
> > > The size of "i40e_dbg_command_buf" is 256, the size of "name"
> > > depends on "IFNAMSIZ", plus a null character and format size,
> > > the total size is more than 256.
> > >
> > > Improve readability and maintainability by replacing a hardcoded string
> > > allocation and formatting by the use of the kasprintf() helper.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 02e9c290814c ("i40e: debugfs interface")
> > > Suggested-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Suggested-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Suggested-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---

...

> Much of this debugfs command code was an early driver hack that probably 
> never should have gone upstream in the form that it did.  The 
> i40e_dbg_command_buf itself was originally meant as a scratchpad to put 
> the 'last command processed', which was not really very useful, and as a 
> static global that might be written by any number of instances of i40e 
> devices, was problematic from the beginning.  Now, unless I'm mistaken, 
> it looks like nothing is writing to the buffer at all anymore, so the 
> buffer and the i40e_dbg_command_read() callback probably should just all 
> go away rather than trying to pretty up some useless code.

Thanks for the history Shannon. I'm not seeing the buffer used either 
so, I agree, we should remove it altogether.

Thanks,
Tony

> sln