[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev: fix coverity issue 323508

[Shreyansh Jain]

On Tuesday 23 October 2018 03:21 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 8:09 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
>> Besides the comment I sent before about 'Fixes' before sign-off, a
>> single trivial comment inline ...
>>
>> On Tuesday 23 October 2018 07:20 AM, Rosen Xu wrote:
>>> This patch fixes rte_eal_hotplug_add without checking return value issue
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu at intel.com>
>>> Fixes: ef1e8ede3da5 ("raw/ifpga: add Intel FPGA bus rawdev driver")
>>> Cc: rosen.xu at intel.com
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c | 5 +++--
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c b/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> index 3fed057..32e318f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga_rawdev/ifpga_rawdev.c
>>> @@ -542,6 +542,7 @@
>>>    	int port;
>>>    	char *name = NULL;
>>>    	char dev_name[RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN];
>>> +	int ret = -1;
>>>    
>>>    	devargs = dev->device.devargs;
>>>    
>>> @@ -583,7 +584,7 @@
>>>    	snprintf(dev_name, RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN, "%d|%s",
>>>    	port, name);
>>>    
>>> -	rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>> +	ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>>>    			dev_name, devargs->args);
>>
>> Ideally, the function argument spreading on next line should start
>> underneath the previous arguments - something like:
>>
>> 	ret = rte_eal_hotplug_add(RTE_STR(IFPGA_BUS_NAME),
>> 				  dev_name, devargs->args);
> 
> Hi Shreyansh,
> 
> According dpdk coding convention [1], indentation done by hard tab, code seems
> inline with coding convention, only perhaps can be done single tab instead of
> double.
> 
> And to remind again, I am not for syntax discussions but just defining one and
> consistently follow it .
> 
> [1]
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#c-indentation
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#prototypes
> 

Oh!. Thanks - something I had missed reading.

I don't want to hijack the conversation, but for my clarity, I think

 >>>    	snprintf(dev_name, RTE_RAWDEV_NAME_MAX_LEN, "%d|%s",
 >>>    	port, name);

won't be correct. Right?
I am not suggesting that it should be changed now that it is already 
part of code.

>>
>> But, in this file this is not being done at multiple places (for
>> example, the snprintf in this code snippet). So, either you can ignore
>> this comment, or fix it for just this change.
>>
>>>    end:
>>>    	if (kvlist)
>>> @@ -591,7 +592,7 @@
>>>    	if (name)
>>>    		free(name);
>>>    
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return ret;
>>>    }
>>>    
>>>    static int
>>>
>>
>> Otherwise, the patch is simple enough.
>>
>> Acked-by: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>
>>
>