On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 05:31:34PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:50:18 +1000 > David Gibson 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. Right, it's like 16s vs 15s for me. I was just a bit concerned they might add more, very expensive tests under the "exhaustive" set later on. > > 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. Ok. Well, apply whenever you're ready then, I guess. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson