From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC: Updates for cppcheck-2.12 warnings
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:31:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230929173134.4f7c1947@elisabeth> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230929055022.48624-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:50:18 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> cppcheck 2.12 (which Fedora 38 has updated, for one) introduces a
> number of new warnings. Unfortunately, at least one of these is a
> clear bug in cppcheck.
>
> This series fixes a number of the new warnings reported in passt
> (patches 1..3) and works around the remaining cppcheck bug (patch 4).
> I'm pretty confident that patches 1 & 2 are safe and beneficial to
> apply regardless of which cppcheck we're using.
>
> Patch 3 is a little more dubious, because it potentially increases the
> cppcheck runtime. On my system it doesn't seem to make a significant
> difference, but that might not always stay true.
On my system, it's 23 seconds instead of 21... I don't really see a
problem with that.
> Patch 4 is a tricky one. It applies a specific suppression to work
> around the cppcheck bug. That's necessary to get a pass with the
> currently available cppcheck. However, it's ugly and we'd like to
> remove it once the bug is fixed, but have no obvious way to remind us
> to do that. What we want to do here kind of depends how long it takes
> the bug to be fixed, which isn't clear at the moment.
I don't see a big issue with this either, we already have one
suppression like that in tcp_clamp_window() where we kind of identified
the issue but it hasn't been solved yet.
Once it's fixed, we'll hopefully notice and drop the suppression if
cppcheck 2.12 is old enough by then, but if we don't, I don't think it's
a drama.
The whole series looks good to me by the way.
--
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-29 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-29 5:50 [PATCH 0/4] RFC: Updates for cppcheck-2.12 warnings David Gibson
2023-09-29 5:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] cppcheck: Make many pointers const David Gibson
2023-09-29 5:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] conf: Remove overly cryptic selection of forward table David Gibson
2023-09-29 5:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] cppcheck: Use "exhaustive" level checking when available David Gibson
2023-09-29 5:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] cppcheck: Work around bug in cppcheck 2.12.0 David Gibson
2023-09-29 5:52 ` [PATCH 0/4] RFC: Updates for cppcheck-2.12 warnings David Gibson
2023-09-29 15:31 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
2023-10-03 2:36 ` David Gibson
2023-10-05 6:19 ` Stefano Brivio
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=20230929173134.4f7c1947@elisabeth \
--to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
/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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://passt.top/passt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for IMAP folder(s).