Make sense!
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:23:38AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:27:01AM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: > > > Looks good. Do we need to filter the warnings out from comments if > they > > > are not to be used in the code? > > > > It's not easy to reliably filter out warnings from comments. It's > > usually easy to avoid mentioning these functions in comments. If it > > becomes a problem, we can do something else. > > Oh, I see what you mean now. I guess I did try to filter out comments and > forgot that I did that. I wrote this patch over a month ago, even > though I only sent it out for the first time this week. > > When I remove the code that filters out comments, the following lines > get flagged: > > ../lib/random.c:34: * We use this PRNG instead of libc's rand() > because rand() varies in quality > ../lib/util.c:649: * similar to the POSIX dirname() function but > thread-safe. */ > ../lib/util.c:667: * similar to the POSIX basename() function but > thread-safe. */ > ../ovsdb/ovsdb-client.c:704: * going to strtok() it and that's > risky with literal "". */ > See above for list of calls to functions that are > blacklisted due to thread safety issues > > I think that these comments are valuable enough that I don't want to > delete or mangle them. What do you think? > > Thanks, > > Ben. >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
