From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7353A0544; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843C34021F; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332C24021D for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:22:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF723200AEF; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 04:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Jun 2022 04:22:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1654676558; x= 1654762958; bh=M8ZvzG5TO1nhnCrdkk4ZEA77hKA+2Xj75ayCdphHDhU=; b=m Ev6CSwD3cVrDB3I7fyXpD3P6aMINAEgmfVj6v/smhR8vu3AKA5jiLbYCNs37tWkC W+gdBweASKA7YgC7xmo8RRzbayJjR6oYFEJwbQNUqMSpIcXQiF8dWxmtFajmoVcc Wp0xz0bjS7NjxgYpqpe27Ms2mJcZ8wQkx0W38ETbkt7FngQMLeKoyhvqKknWTdHf lw50NSeKf8Q4qMjxeTAZ6zotRI4eRREgRQaokfWQJJi7Xa3P3RqFTv+Gt1ftSLsU 8hQHReDXfHJ732s14PZmMjZmEK4x1S/ny0+W5vHd+06yHzi7JUkBIh7BFxD/3Dll 9Y7he+TOhfGx8IxJUuY+w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1654676558; x= 1654762958; bh=M8ZvzG5TO1nhnCrdkk4ZEA77hKA+2Xj75ayCdphHDhU=; b=a EBa7JsbWjRhy99b72Oy8RNycHiGMtZIBYfp3aGmbdZqoUnDrwSjk1pEXsgNnQltm DLL3fPkAgaR1Y7wE/0133t3ys0NeJaRZxQOKoWfEi7PUaa9BN1ohE6a1iHk0s/1E RlsATCyjZkxEKug4wv8IPXMg5OnuuSDu3UmGUT9gTecvFmkLKhH76RtlIb4HFR8g 9AffrePW3Ro9kGXtlKdXJAX4gBlsvirMaWKuNG3DvGvths7dPuTe9IQF1nAOPVkK l5y/kNppxXoaqMYq6fUkElb0LHwAQCM4TC/S8r4TPWZemzZZpZQqfVlhtTjHywp/ XV+9q0U5Se7Ej0pYQKWZw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedruddtjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurf hrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcu ofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepteejveegiefgteeitdevgfdtieffgeefvdfhueeitedtfeduvefhgedv hedvtddunecuffhomhgrihhnpehlghhtmhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhn vght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 04:22:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org, john.mcnamara@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com Subject: Re: Lgtm scan of DPDK Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 10:22:36 +0200 Message-ID: <5572850.DvuYhMxLoT@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20220527161210.77212d0b@hermes.local> References: <20220527161210.77212d0b@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 28/05/2022 01:12, Stephen Hemminger: > I just discovered that there is another tool similar to Coverity for scanning. > It gives different results, and might be useful. > The scans of github open source projects is already done. > > See: https://lgtm.com/projects/g/DPDK/dpdk > > Shows 19 errors, 263 warnings and 111 recommendations. > > Of course, some of these are bogus. For example, tool thinks are scripts are Python 2. The problem is that we already invest some time in Coverity triage to mark false positives. Can you check whether this tool has some false positives?