> -----Original Message----- > From: Kerlin, MarcinX [mailto:marcinx.kerlin at intel.com] > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:12 AM > To: John Daley (johndale) <johndale at cisco.com>; Nelson Escobar > (neescoba) <neescoba at cisco.com> > Cc: 'dev at dpdk.org' <dev at 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 at cisco.com; neescoba at cisco.com > > Cc: dev at 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
