> From: Moger, Babu <babu.mo...@amd.com>
> > From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua...@intel.com>
> > From: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prak...@intel.com>
> >
> > The basic resctrl file system operations and data are added for future
> > usage by resctrl selftest tool.
> >
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +char get_sock_num(int cpu_no)
> > +{
> > + char sock_num, phys_pkg_path[1024];
> > + FILE *fp;
> > +
> > + sprintf(phys_pkg_path, "%s%d/topology/physical_package_id",
> > + PHYS_ID_PATH, cpu_no);
> > + fp = fopen(phys_pkg_path, "r");
>
> There should corresponding fclose for this. In general, I would check all the
> fopens in this series. I found few of the files not closed while returning.
> More comments below.
>
> > + if (!fp || fscanf(fp, "%c", &sock_num) <= 0 || fclose(fp) == EOF) {
fclose is here.
> > + perror("Could not get socket number");
> > +
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + */
> > + if (!freopen("/dev/null", "w", stdout))
> > + PARENT_EXIT("Unable to direct BM op to /dev/null");
>
> Do you need fclose for this before returning from this function?
This fclose is missing. I will add it.
> > + /* Write child pid to con_mon grp */
> > + fp = fopen(controlgroup, "w");
>
> I don't see corresponding fclose.
>
> > + if (!fp || fprintf(fp, "%d\n", bm_pid) <= 0 || fclose(fp) == EOF) {
fclose is here:)
> > + perror("Failed to write child to con_mon grp");
> > +
> > + return errno;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Write child pid to mon grp, only for "mbm" */
> > + if ((strcmp(resctrl_val, "mbm") == 0)) {
> > + if (mongrp) {
> > + fp = fopen(monitorgroup, "w");
> > + if (!fp || fprintf(fp, "%d\n", bm_pid) <= 0 ||
> > + fclose(fp) == EOF) {
>
>
> I feel too many checks at one place. If fprintf fails, will it fclose the
> file? I suggest to separate these checks.
You are right. I will separate the checks in multiple lines.
>
> > +
> > + fp = fopen(controlgroup, "w");
> > + if (!fp || fprintf(fp, "%s\n", schema) <= 0 ||
> > + fclose(fp) == EOF) {
>
> Same comment as above.. If fprintf fails, will it fclose the file? I suggest
> to separate these checks.
Sure.
I will change code based on your comments.
Thanks.
-Fenghua
