On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 08:15:25AM -0700, Usman S. Ansari wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:00 AM Simon Horman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:36:51PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:15:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > > From: Usman Ansari <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Coverity reports unreachable code in "?" statement > > > > Fixed by removing code segment > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Usman Ansari <[email protected]> > > > > > > This code looks pretty confused. I don't think we should just change it > > > without understanding it. > > > > > > Pieter and Simon, you were both involved in the following code in > > > tc_add_matchall_policer(). It sets block_id to a constant zero, never > > > changes it, and then tests its value. Surely that was not the > > > intention. What's the real goal here? > > > > Hi Ben, Hi Usman, > > > > I think that this code was copied from elsewhere and > > morphed into its current state during development. > > I apologise for not catching the dead code during review. > > > > I think that the proposed change is safe. The function in question > > relates to offload of ingress policing, and it appears to me that has never > > been exercised in conjunction with indirect blocks, which the dead code > > relates to. > > > > I would suggest that the cleanup patch could go a few steps further > > by removing the local block_id and index variables entirely. > > > > > Will do, thanks.
Thanks. I think you could also look into removing the definition of TCM_IFINDEX_MAGIC_BLOCK from this file as it probably becomes unused with these changes. ... _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
