From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6937DAA3B for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:44:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1504; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466448275; x=1467657875; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=q8XfQlWBE5TBa0woEEJWv+7K7sPDQOUwlOqwzwSoQOs=; b=eHpDQwZ5tAu/m3oZKwWUM1qUz9MtyqEhLVh8cnwlV1zjjH/2QnIoKkXF Pqm6VaK9zxXcJ+nQZ0wi1rscW90resbE1q7vCReCN2+SGDELvpjU3e1za n8prF0EEjr6KeiO+Stlw3/oXTbwWg8zRnJtKfxWShVvpHLNBCOlCPV5si c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AOBQC4OGhX/4wNJK1dgz6BUwa6bYF6h?= =?us-ascii?q?hcCgTU5EwEBAQEBAQFlJ4RLAQEBAwF5DAQCAQgRBAEBKAcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FCIg?= =?us-ascii?q?gCME9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIYnhE2KGwEEji2KSQGOIo8pj3YBH?= =?us-ascii?q?wE0gggcgUxuiUl/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,499,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="285977030" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jun 2016 18:44:34 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5KIiYa8021445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:44:34 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:44:33 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:44:33 -0500 From: "John Daley (johndale)" To: "Kerlin, MarcinX" , "Nelson Escobar (neescoba)" CC: "'dev@dpdk.org'" Thread-Topic: unchecked return value in enic driver Thread-Index: AdHFZTPCoxBaRpidQCOMNdU6UvbsiAFfdb1QABAQEwA= Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:44:33 +0000 Message-ID: <7f50de6575a0483682fcd83b5691eb82@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> References: <68D830D942438745AD09BAFA99E33E8125DFA8@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <68D830D942438745AD09BAFA99E33E8125F85F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <68D830D942438745AD09BAFA99E33E8125F85F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.107.50] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:44:35 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kerlin, MarcinX [mailto:marcinx.kerlin@intel.com] > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:12 AM > To: John Daley (johndale) ; Nelson Escobar > (neescoba) > Cc: 'dev@dpdk.org' > Subject: RE: unchecked return value in enic driver >=20 > Hi John and Nelson, >=20 > > -----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.=A0check_return:=A0Calling=A0rte_atomic64_cmpset=A0wi= thout > > 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.=20 Thanks! John >=20 > I marked this Coverity as false-positive with an explanation. If in your = opinion > it is not ok, you can reopen/change/fix it. >=20 > > > > Regards, > > Marcin