Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph (fwd)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux