From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FD5A09E0; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:29:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FF5C868; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:29:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CD84CA6; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:29:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7571CB54; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:29:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= pPEoesPZi4mY15JoG5U+YeXlKtfomnfvJXxYw3eBiic=; b=i/XuCkQPGFqku4Yi AsmQMpUTaNXRCf3U/eNqSk+Rnnqovla0AP4P+7GrL1D2eB4bAETZDepA3DIsLYHW xr7R0SS7pGB/AHmaOp7r58Xyi8Kjw2W0nCIn5MIgvp8RHkvG3r1YQR8kya+hEUGg aQ3p7m3su6ZsdqQoej7+SI6zZJnnSCL5nzwe4u6eWDr7mwc+IBDh2tjVaKnImelT hAAAIoH3iegqTk5qyH9HqXNSSWes2LtPrCoZBGKFDrK3Jg6Z9COE6bVEkHEhGB9C ORKPNFihAT7eYAqiXC8ly6sW3e51GCv10YTHYKP0vizIYebMJDCmAOe2sUn7v3v0 RhQMIg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=pPEoesPZi4mY15JoG5U+YeXlKtfomnfvJXxYw3eBi ic=; b=P2VNuaGZUmnNeCaXhlQAUd76WvWB9BIv7cG5zEe29PcuAE/WsZ8Salljw ue1EXZl+/ra8clAQOuD3TrQacHHJnbU4tt1hOXQOLiPUUthZ7cu57jnC8FOhtzwx NX0fdmrdk+SSm5u/Sm7B3T0i0frh7TfOO1T+Bw36UCk4jaCirVx+6zwQ0DBG/Drg JZvXhtcAf9Z15DtiWBo4v9RhvFKvFXzCRXt3VvrlktdhBAiB/O0z54Im5If5kPP0 R+IrWvT+orudQmNO+Vkjro9iV0R4Nmx3zMVO1Jn2qui0VMtsNapNZt83OXBjMUJ3 pFsbnCKdwEa0TOn/e9oUNHgZFgsqw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddvhedgieegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 99D5A3280065; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:29:03 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Hunt , Olivier Matz Cc: dev@dpdk.org, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru, stable@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:29:02 +0100 Message-ID: <8175137.iOmTMfLZip@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20201105135837.GW1898@platinum> References: <20201105135114.10920-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <20201105135837.GW1898@platinum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool: fix ignore return value Coverity issue X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/11/2020 14:58, Olivier Matz: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 01:51:14PM +0000, David Hunt wrote: > > Coverity flags that rte_mempool_ops_dequeue_bulk() is called without > > checking the return value. > > > > This ignoring is intentional, so this patch gets the return code, then > > uses RTE_SET_USED so that Coverity will be happy. > > > > Coverity issue: 363744 > > Fixes: 449c49b93a6b ("mempool: support handler operations") > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: David Hunt > > Acked-by: Olivier Matz > > Thanks David! This patch is doing nothing else than shutting up Coverity. Is there any value adding this comment in the code? Would it be cleaner to mark it as false positive in Coverity itself?