[v2,3/8] net/ipn3ke: fix incorrect commit check logic
Checks
| Context |
Check |
Description |
| ci/Intel-compilation |
fail
|
apply issues
|
Commit Message
Coverity is complaining about identical code regardless of which branch
of the if else is taken. Functionally it means an error will always be
returned if this if else is hit. Remove the else branch.
CID 337928 (#1 of 1): Identical code for different branches
(IDENTICAL_BRANCHES)identical_branches: The same code is executed
regardless of whether n->level != IPN3KE_TM_NODE_LEVEL_COS ||
n->n_children != 0U is true, because the 'then' and 'else' branches
are identical. Should one of the branches be modified, or the entire
'if' statement replaced?
1506 if (n->level != IPN3KE_TM_NODE_LEVEL_COS ||
1507 n->n_children != 0) {
1508 return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
1509 EINVAL,
1510 RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
1511 NULL,
1512 rte_strerror(EINVAL));
else_branch: The else branch, identical to the then branch.
1513 } else {
1514 return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
1515 EINVAL,
1516 RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
1517 NULL,
1518 rte_strerror(EINVAL));
1519 }
Coverity issue: 337928
Fixes: c820468ac99c ("net/ipn3ke: support TM")
Cc: rosen.xu@intel.com
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
---
drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Traynor [mailto:ktraynor@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2019 3:02
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com; Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>;
> Xu, Rosen <rosen.xu@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [v2 PATCH 3/8] net/ipn3ke: fix incorrect commit check logic
>
> Coverity is complaining about identical code regardless of which branch of
> the if else is taken. Functionally it means an error will always be returned if
> this if else is hit. Remove the else branch.
>
> CID 337928 (#1 of 1): Identical code for different branches
> (IDENTICAL_BRANCHES)identical_branches: The same code is executed
> regardless of whether n->level != IPN3KE_TM_NODE_LEVEL_COS ||
> n->n_children != 0U is true, because the 'then' and 'else' branches
> are identical. Should one of the branches be modified, or the entire
> 'if' statement replaced?
> 1506 if (n->level != IPN3KE_TM_NODE_LEVEL_COS ||
> 1507 n->n_children != 0) {
> 1508 return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> 1509 EINVAL,
> 1510 RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
> 1511 NULL,
> 1512 rte_strerror(EINVAL));
> else_branch: The else branch, identical to the then branch.
> 1513 } else {
> 1514 return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> 1515 EINVAL,
> 1516 RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
> 1517 NULL,
> 1518 rte_strerror(EINVAL));
> 1519 }
>
> Coverity issue: 337928
> Fixes: c820468ac99c ("net/ipn3ke: support TM")
> Cc: rosen.xu@intel.com
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c
> b/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c index adf02c157..a93145d59 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ipn3ke/ipn3ke_tm.c
> @@ -1511,10 +1511,4 @@ ipn3ke_tm_hierarchy_commit_check(struct
> rte_eth_dev *dev,
> NULL,
> rte_strerror(EINVAL));
> - } else {
> - return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
> - EINVAL,
> -
> RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
> - NULL,
> - rte_strerror(EINVAL));
> }
> }
> --
> 2.21.0
Reviewed-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu@intel.com>
@@ -1511,10 +1511,4 @@ ipn3ke_tm_hierarchy_commit_check(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
NULL,
rte_strerror(EINVAL));
- } else {
- return -rte_tm_error_set(error,
- EINVAL,
- RTE_TM_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED,
- NULL,
- rte_strerror(EINVAL));
}
}