> -----Original Message----- > From: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 8:06 AM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] examples/qos_meter: fix unchecked return value > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Dumitrescu, Cristian > >Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:57 PM > >To: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX <slawomirx.mrozowicz at intel.com> > >Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com> > >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] examples/qos_meter: fix unchecked return value > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:15 AM > >> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com> > >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com> > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] examples/qos_meter: fix unchecked return value > >> > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Dumitrescu, Cristian > >> >Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:42 PM > >> >To: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX <slawomirx.mrozowicz at intel.com> > >> >Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com> > >> >Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] examples/qos_meter: fix unchecked return > >> >value > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX > >> >> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 9:38 AM > >> >> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com> > >> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>; > >> >> Mrozowicz, SlawomirX <slawomirx.mrozowicz at intel.com> > >> >> Subject: [PATCH v3] examples/qos_meter: fix unchecked return value > >> >> > >> >> Fix issue reported by Coverity. > >> >> > >> >> Coverity ID 30693: Unchecked return value > >> >> check_return: Calling rte_meter_srtcm_config without checking > >> >> return value. > >> >> > >> >> Fixes: e6541fdec8b2 ("meter: initial import") > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Slawomir Mrozowicz > <slawomirx.mrozowicz at intel.com> > >> >> --- > >> >> examples/qos_meter/main.c | 15 ++++++++++----- > >> >> examples/qos_meter/main.h | 2 +- > >> >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/examples/qos_meter/main.c > b/examples/qos_meter/main.c > >> >> index b968b00..7c69606 100644 > >> >> --- a/examples/qos_meter/main.c > >> >> +++ b/examples/qos_meter/main.c > >> >> @@ -133,14 +133,17 @@ struct rte_meter_trtcm_params > >> >app_trtcm_params[] > >> >> = { > >> >> > >> >> FLOW_METER app_flows[APP_FLOWS_MAX]; > >> >> > >> >> -static void > >> >> +static int > >> >> app_configure_flow_table(void) > >> >> { > >> >> uint32_t i, j; > >> >> + int ret = 0; > >> >> > >> >> - for (i = 0, j = 0; i < APP_FLOWS_MAX; i ++, j = (j + 1) % > >> >> RTE_DIM(PARAMS)){ > >> >> - FUNC_CONFIG(&app_flows[i], &PARAMS[j]); > >> >> - } > >> >> + for (i = 0, j = 0; i < APP_FLOWS_MAX && ret == 0; > >> >> + i ++, j = (j + 1) % RTE_DIM(PARAMS)) > >> >> + ret = FUNC_CONFIG(&app_flows[i], &PARAMS[j]); > >> >> + > >> >> + return ret; > >> >> } > >> > > >> >This is only returns the configuration status for the last flow and > >> >leaves undetected an error for any other flow. Why not check the > >> >status for each flow and return an error on first occurrence? > >> >For (...){ret = FUNC_CONFIG(...); if (ret) return ret;} > >> > > >> > >> This code check status of the function FUNC_CONFIG for each flow and > >> return an error on first occurrence. Rest of functions FUNC_CONFIG are > >> not called. See terminate condition of the loop. > >> > > > >Where is the status of FUNC_CONFIG checked exactly? I cannot see any > check > >in your code. I can only see returning the status code for the last call of > >this > >function in the for loop. I was expecting a check such as: if (ret) return > >ret. > > > > Look at the loop terminate conditions: > i < APP_FLOWS_MAX && ret == 0 > Program terminate the loop if the ret variable is differ then zero. > It means that program terminate if the last status of FUNC_CONFIG is an > error.
Yes, you're right, my bad, sorry. > > >> >> > >> >> static inline void > >> >> @@ -381,7 +384,9 @@ main(int argc, char **argv) > >> >> rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(port_tx); > >> >> > >> >> /* App configuration */ > >> >> - app_configure_flow_table(); > >> >> + ret = app_configure_flow_table(); > >> >> + if (ret < 0) > >> >> + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Invalid configure flow > >> >> table\n"); > >> >> > >> >> /* Launch per-lcore init on every lcore */ > >> >> rte_eal_mp_remote_launch(main_loop, NULL, CALL_MASTER); diff - > >> - > >> >git > >> >> a/examples/qos_meter/main.h b/examples/qos_meter/main.h index > >> >> 530bf69..54867dc 100644 > >> >> --- a/examples/qos_meter/main.h > >> >> +++ b/examples/qos_meter/main.h > >> >> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ enum policer_action > >> >> policer_table[e_RTE_METER_COLORS][e_RTE_METER_COLORS] = #if > >> >APP_MODE > >> >> == APP_MODE_FWD > >> >> > >> >> #define FUNC_METER(a,b,c,d) color, flow_id=flow_id, > >> >> pkt_len=pkt_len, time=time -#define FUNC_CONFIG(a,b) > >> >> +#define FUNC_CONFIG(a, b) 0 > >> >> #define PARAMS app_srtcm_params > >> >> #define FLOW_METER int > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> 1.9.1