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 C6582A2EDB for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:04:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11D51BE98; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:04:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B531BE8D; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:04:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8801B300CA4B; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rh.redhat.com (unknown [10.36.118.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D485C1D4; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:04:20 +0000 (UTC) From: Kevin Traynor To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Kevin Traynor , rosen.xu@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:04:00 +0100 Message-Id: <20191001130405.7076-3-ktraynor@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20191001130405.7076-1-ktraynor@redhat.com> References: <20191001125315.6191-1-ktraynor@redhat.com> <20191001130405.7076-1-ktraynor@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.42]); Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 4/9] net/ipn3ke: fix incorrect commit check logic X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" Coverity is complaining about identical code regardless of which branch of the if else is taken. Functionally it means an error will always be returned if this if else is hit. Remove the else branch. CID 337928 (#1 of 1): Identical code for different branches (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES)identical_branches: The same code is executed regardless of whether n->level != IPN3KE_TM_NODE_LEVEL_COS || n->n_children != 0U is true, because the 'then' and 'else' branches are identical. Should one of the branches be modified, or the entire 'if' statement replaced? 1506 if (n->level != IPN3KE_TM_NODE_LEVEL_COS || 1507 n->n_children != 0) { 1508 return -rte_tm_error_set(error, 1509 EINVAL, 1510 RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, 1511 NULL, 1512 rte_strerror(EINVAL)); else_branch: The else branch, identical to the then branch. 1513 } else { 1514 return -rte_tm_error_set(error, 1515 EINVAL, 1516 RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, 1517 NULL, 1518 rte_strerror(EINVAL)); 1519 } Coverity issue: 337928 Fixes: c820468ac99c ("net/ipn3ke: support TM") Cc: rosen.xu@intel.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor --- drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c b/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c index adf02c157..a93145d59 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c +++ b/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c @@ -1511,10 +1511,4 @@ ipn3ke_tm_hierarchy_commit_check(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, NULL, rte_strerror(EINVAL)); - } else { - return -rte_tm_error_set(error, - EINVAL, - RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, - NULL, - rte_strerror(EINVAL)); } } -- 2.21.0