[dpdk-dev] unchecked return value in enic driver

[dpdk-dev] unchecked return value in enic driver

[Kerlin, MarcinX]

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. check_return: Calling rte_atomic64_cmpset without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 15 out of 17 times)

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

What is your opinion?

Regards,
Marcin

Re: [dpdk-dev] unchecked return value in enic driver

[Kerlin, MarcinX]

Hi John and Nelson,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kerlin, MarcinX
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 1:18 PM
> To: johndale@cisco.com; neescoba@cisco.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: unchecked return value in enic driver
> 
> 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. check_return: Calling rte_atomic64_cmpset without
> checking return value (as is done elsewhere 15 out of 17 times)
> 
> Can I mark this error as "False Positive" in Coverity Classification ? reason:
> 1. Function returns a void type so change the return type to int requires
> changes all drivers 2. rte_atomic64_cmpset is at the end of function so
> nonsense added a return
> 
> What is your opinion?

I marked this Coverity as false-positive with an explanation. If in your opinion it is not ok, you can reopen/change/fix it.

> 
> Regards,
> Marcin

Re: [dpdk-dev] unchecked return value in enic driver

[John Daley (johndale)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kerlin, MarcinX [mailto:marcinx.kerlin@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:12 AM
> To: John Daley (johndale) <johndale@cisco.com>; Nelson Escobar
> (neescoba) <neescoba@cisco.com>
> Cc: 'dev@dpdk.org' <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: RE: unchecked return value in enic driver
> 
> Hi John and Nelson,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kerlin, MarcinX
> > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 1:18 PM
> > To: johndale@cisco.com; neescoba@cisco.com
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: unchecked return value in enic driver
> >
> > 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. check_return: Calling rte_atomic64_cmpset without
> > checking return value (as is done elsewhere 15 out of 17 times)
> >
> > Can I mark this error as "False Positive" in Coverity Classification ? reason:
> > 1. Function returns a void type so change the return type to int
> > requires changes all drivers 2. rte_atomic64_cmpset is at the end of
> > function so nonsense added a return
> >
> > What is your opinion?

I agree with marking it false positive for the reason you mention. 
Thanks!
John

> 
> I marked this Coverity as false-positive with an explanation. If in your opinion
> it is not ok, you can reopen/change/fix it.
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marcin