пт, 31 июл. 2020 г. в 14:26, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > Hi Ilya, > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 03:06:06PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > From e5a49969d374e3e8e9da695dca48cb6fa82ca13d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Ilya Shipitsin <[email protected]> > > Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:01:10 +0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] CLEANUP: suppress coverity warnings > > > > Coverity is not happy when return value is not examined. Those > > warnings are already marked as "Intentional", let us explicitely > > mark them with DISGUISE(..) > (...) > > - setsockopt(conn->handle.fd, IPPROTO_IP, IP_TOS, &tos, > sizeof(tos)); > > + DISGUISE(setsockopt(conn->handle.fd, IPPROTO_IP, IP_TOS, > &tos, sizeof(tos))); > (...) > > This is getting quite ugly over time. We already had to deal with some > of these when some libcs added a must_check attribute to some calls > like write() which we used only for debugging. > > Your change doesn't just address Coverity's caprices but could as well > serve if some libcs add this attribute later. But I don't like what the > code looks like (mainly because it becomes ubiquitous and not exceptional > anymore). > > Probably we should proceed differently and have something like these > for the cases where no return is desired: > > fcntl_noret() => unchecked fcntl() > setsockopt_noret() => unchecked setsockopt() > > Both would be just static inline functions wrapping the other ones in a > DISGUISE() if needed. > > Then we could change the calls above to be more explicit about the intent > of not having a return, and less ugly to read. > > Do you want to try to do something like this ? >
those issues are not urgent. I will try. > > Thanks, > Willy >
