From: Sebastien Ponce <sebastien.ponce@cern.ch>
To: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph (fwd)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:37:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1403077059.4397.10.camel@sebmain.cern.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1406070911560.11424@cobra.newdream.net>
I've now looked at the defects. And according to me, there are mostly
irrelevant.
There are 2 cases :
- the 2 "division by zero" will never happen because we will never run
the test with a zero parameter. Still, I've added an ASSERT to avoid
their report.
- all the rest is a clash between gtest and coverity : whenever you
allocate something via the C API and you have an assert between this
allocation and the deallocation, you have a potential resource leak if
the assert fails. However, avoiding it means wrapping all the C API in a
kind of autoPtr interface. I do not believe it's worth it for test code.
By the way, the rados tests must have the same leaks a priori and I
suppose they are ignored.
So is it ok to commit the 2 new asserts and ignore the other defects ?
Cheers,
Sebastien
On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 09:12 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> Mostly stuff in teh new libradosstriper code, it looks like.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-18 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-07 16:12 New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph (fwd) Sage Weil
2014-06-08 8:38 ` Sebastien Ponce
2014-06-18 7:37 ` Sebastien Ponce [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-10-08 14:59 Sage Weil
2014-09-30 13:59 Sage Weil
2014-09-30 17:26 ` Loic Dachary
2014-09-30 17:36 ` Gregory Farnum
2014-09-30 17:38 ` Sage Weil
2014-09-30 17:41 ` Ric Wheeler
2014-09-25 15:02 Sage Weil
2014-09-25 15:27 ` John Spray
2014-09-16 21:44 Sage Weil
2014-08-23 16:04 Sage Weil
2014-07-11 3:39 Sage Weil
2014-06-20 14:46 Sage Weil
2014-06-06 15:54 Sage Weil
2014-05-30 13:54 Sage Weil
2014-05-20 16:16 Sage Weil
2014-05-10 16:03 Sage Weil
2014-04-22 15:26 Sage Weil
2014-04-12 4:06 Sage Weil
2014-04-12 8:26 ` Loic Dachary
2014-03-03 22:23 Sage Weil
2014-03-03 22:53 ` John Spray
2014-03-04 0:53 ` Li Wang
2013-12-17 17:10 Sage Weil
2013-12-16 16:07 Sage Weil
2013-12-17 9:01 ` Ilya Dryomov
2013-08-21 4:09 Sage Weil
2013-07-25 20:31 Sage Weil
2013-07-19 18:04 Sage Weil
2013-06-19 19:36 Sage Weil
2013-06-19 21:03 ` Loic Dachary
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1403077059.4397.10.camel@sebmain.cern.ch \
--to=sebastien.ponce@cern.ch \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sage@inktank.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.