From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <marcinx.kerlin@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8284F530A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:18:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2016 04:18:01 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,466,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="974498139"
Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2016 04:18:00 -0700
Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.10]) by
 IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.28]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002;
 Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:17:59 +0100
From: "Kerlin, MarcinX" <marcinx.kerlin@intel.com>
To: "johndale@cisco.com" <johndale@cisco.com>, "neescoba@cisco.com"
 <neescoba@cisco.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Thread-Topic: unchecked return value in enic driver
Thread-Index: AdHFZTPCoxBaRpidQCOMNdU6UvbsiA==
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:17:59 +0000
Message-ID: <68D830D942438745AD09BAFA99E33E8125DFA8@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
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="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [dpdk-dev] unchecked return value in enic driver
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:18:02 -0000

Hi John and Nelson,

I have a question regarding Coverity defects:

File: /drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c
Line: 379

CID 13197: Unchecked return value (CHECKED_RETURN)1.=A0check_return:=A0Call=
ing=A0rte_atomic64_cmpset=A0without checking return value (as is done elsew=
here 15 out of 17 times)

Can I mark this error as "False Positive" in Coverity Classification ? reas=
on:
1. Function returns a void type so change the return type to int requires c=
hanges all drivers
2. rte_atomic64_cmpset is at the end of function so nonsense added a return

What is your opinion?

Regards,
Marcin