[4/5] ubi: Replace memcpy with struct assignment

This kind of memcpy() is error-prone. Its replacement with a struct
assignment is prefered because it's type-safe and much easier to read.

Found by coccinelle. Hand patched and reviewed.
Tested by compilation only.

A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as
follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@@
identifier struct_name;
struct struct_name to;
struct struct_name from;
expression E;
@@
-memcpy(&(to), &(from), E);
+to = from;
// </smpl>

Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c |    3 +--
 drivers/mtd/ubi/upd.c   |    6 ++----
 drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c   |    2 +-
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@gmail.com> wrote:
> This kind of memcpy() is error-prone. Its replacement with a struct
> assignment is prefered because it's type-safe and much easier to read.
>
> Found by coccinelle. Hand patched and reviewed.
> Tested by compilation only.
>
> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as
> follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>
> // <smpl>
> @@
> identifier struct_name;
> struct struct_name to;
> struct struct_name from;
> expression E;
> @@
> -memcpy(&(to), &(from), E);
> +to = from;
> // </smpl>
>
> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c |    3 +--
>  drivers/mtd/ubi/upd.c   |    6 ++----
>  drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c   |    2 +-
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
> index 344b4cb..fb59604 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c
> @@ -825,8 +825,7 @@ static int autoresize(struct ubi_device *ubi, int vol_id)
>                  * No available PEBs to re-size the volume, clear the flag on
>                  * flash and exit.
>                  */
> -               memcpy(&vtbl_rec, &ubi->vtbl[vol_id],
> -                      sizeof(struct ubi_vtbl_record));
> +               vtbl_rec = ubi->vtbl[vol_id];
>                 err = ubi_change_vtbl_record(ubi, vol_id, &vtbl_rec);
>                 if (err)
>                         ubi_err("cannot clean auto-resize flag for volume %d",
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/upd.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/upd.c
> index 9f2ebd8..ec2c2dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/upd.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/upd.c
> @@ -64,8 +64,7 @@ static int set_update_marker(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct ubi_volume *vol)
>                 return 0;
>         }
>
> -       memcpy(&vtbl_rec, &ubi->vtbl[vol->vol_id],
> -              sizeof(struct ubi_vtbl_record));
> +       vtbl_rec = ubi->vtbl[vol->vol_id];
>         vtbl_rec.upd_marker = 1;
>
>         mutex_lock(&ubi->device_mutex);
> @@ -93,8 +92,7 @@ static int clear_update_marker(struct ubi_device *ubi, struct ubi_volume *vol,
>
>         dbg_gen("clear update marker for volume %d", vol->vol_id);
>
> -       memcpy(&vtbl_rec, &ubi->vtbl[vol->vol_id],
> -              sizeof(struct ubi_vtbl_record));
> +       vtbl_rec = ubi->vtbl[vol->vol_id];
>         ubi_assert(vol->upd_marker && vtbl_rec.upd_marker);
>         vtbl_rec.upd_marker = 0;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c
> index 9169e58..99ef8a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/vmt.c
> @@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ int ubi_resize_volume(struct ubi_volume_desc *desc, int reserved_pebs)
>         }
>
>         /* Change volume table record */
> -       memcpy(&vtbl_rec, &ubi->vtbl[vol_id], sizeof(struct ubi_vtbl_record));
> +       vtbl_rec = ubi->vtbl[vol_id];
>         vtbl_rec.reserved_pebs = cpu_to_be32(reserved_pebs);
>         err = ubi_change_vtbl_record(ubi, vol_id, &vtbl_rec);
>         if (err)
> --
> 1.7.8.6
>

Oops, subject says "[PATCH 4/5] ..." but this is not part of any series.

So patch subject should be:
"[PATCH] ubi: Replace memcpy with struct assignment"

Sorry,

    Ezequiel

On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 08:58 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> This kind of memcpy() is error-prone. Its replacement with a struct
> assignment is prefered because it's type-safe and much easier to read.
> 
> Found by coccinelle. Hand patched and reviewed.
> Tested by compilation only.
> 
> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as
> follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

Pushed to linux-ubi.git, thanks!