From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBDC9267 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:12:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2015 16:12:07 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,284,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="836283806" Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.59]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2015 16:12:06 -0800 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.13]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.95]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:12:05 +0000 From: "Mcnamara, John" To: Stephen Hemminger , Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Coverity policy for upstream (base) drivers. Thread-Index: AQHRHZY9DW18tagHSkOV+3hXiPhHrZ6ZCdag Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:12:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151112140508.79489210@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <20151112140508.79489210@xeon-e3> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Coverity policy for upstream (base) drivers. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:12:09 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:05 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Coverity policy for upstream (base) drivers. >=20 > Looking at the Coverity scan for DPDK, it looks like all the base drivers > are marked to be ignored. >=20 > Although the changes to base drivers should not be done directly through > DPDK list. I think it is still valuable to have these driver scanned and > notify (badger) the vendors to fix there code. >=20 > Since lots of the bugs could be there, just blindly ignoring warnings and > issues is being naive. Hi Stephen, I set up the Coverity rules. I added the ignore rules for the base drivers = on the assumption that the DPDK community wasn't, in most cases, going to b= e able to fix issues that occurred in them. However, as you say, it is best= to know about potential bugs even if there isn't a direct route to fix the= m. If we are going to turn on analysis of the base drivers then maybe we can w= ait until after we have a baseline for DPDK 2.3 since I presume there will = be a flood of issues and I don't want the new issues in this release (that = we can fix more readily) to get lost. The base drivers aside, we have 114 open issues that should be fixed, or ma= rked as investigated and safe to ignore. Also, the analysis is currently ru= n with only the default DPDK config options. I'll extend the analysis to ru= n as many of the non-default config items as possible. If people haven't already done so I would urge them to sign up and view/fix= the defects. https://scan.coverity.com/users/sign_up https://scan.coverity.com/projects/4005 (DPDK) Apply as "Contributor/Member" if you plan to review/close issues or as "Def= ect Viewer" if you just wish to see the issues. I've recently set up a script to identify the likely author of new Coverity= defects based on git blame, and to email them the defect report. It isn't = 100% accurate, in particular for whitespace changes around existing defects= , but it is a start. John. --=20