On 5/10/2016 6:18 PM, Dumitrescu, Cristian wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mrzyglod, DanielX T
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:11 AM
>> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Mrzyglod, DanielX T <danielx.t.mrzyglod at intel.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] sched: fix useless call
>>
>> Fix issue reported by Coverity.
>> Coverity ID 13338
>>
>> A function call that seems to have an intended effect has no actual effect
>> on the logic of the program.
>>
>> In rte_sched_port_free: A function is called that is only useful for its
>> return value, and this value is ignored.
>>
>> Fixes: de3cfa2c9823 ("sched: initial import")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod at intel.com>
>> ---
>> lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c b/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c
>> index 1609ea8..9b962a6 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c
>> @@ -749,7 +749,6 @@ rte_sched_port_free(struct rte_sched_port *port)
>> rte_pktmbuf_free(mbufs[i]);
>> }
>>
>> - rte_bitmap_free(port->bmp);
>> rte_free(port);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.5.5
>
> NAK.
>
> This needs to be flagged out as a false positive to Coverity.
>
> As previously discussed on this email list, the rte_bitmap_free() is an API
> function that works as a placeholder for any resource freeing that needs to
> be done for the bitmap. The API function should not be removed and also the
> call to this function from the rte_sched_port_free() should not be removed
> either.
>
Right now it isn't required and doesn't do anything.
Why not add this function when it is required?
Anyway, if we will keep it, I believe it is good to add a comment that
it is a placeholder, to prevent same confusion in the future.
Regards,
ferruh
