On Thu, Mar 10 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> On 03/09/2016 01:30 AM, Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Grow_addbitmap() is only ever called with s->bitmap_file != NULL, but >>> not all static code checkers catch this. This adds a check to quiet >>> down the false positive warnings. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Grow.c | 9 ++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Grow.c b/Grow.c >>> index 0fa776d..c453eb6 100755 >>> --- a/Grow.c >>> +++ b/Grow.c >>> @@ -297,7 +297,14 @@ int Grow_addbitmap(char *devname, int fd, struct context *c, struct shape *s) >>> " between different architectures. Consider upgrading the Linux kernel.\n"); >>> } >>> - if (s->bitmap_file && strcmp(s->bitmap_file, "clustered") == >>> 0) >>> + /* >>> + * We only ever get called if s->bitmap_file is != NULL, so this check >>> + * is just here to quiet down static code checkers. >>> + */ >>> + if (!s->bitmap_file) >>> + return 1; >> >> Is it really need to make all static code checkers happy? ;-) >> Otherwise, I would prefer remove above check. >> >> Anyway, I am fine with the changes. > > We had a check in one place, but not in the remaining places. I just > made it more consistent. I wonder if maybe the checker was only complaining because the code was inconsistent. i.e. if we just got rid of the existing test on s->bitmap_file, maybe that would make the checker happy. It would be interesting to experiment even if you ultimately decide to leave the new test there. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
