On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:48:17AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > On 01/28/2013 01:16 PM, Michal Židek wrote: > >On 01/28/2013 10:44 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >>On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:37:19AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > >>>We should also test the return value of close() on the succeeding > >>>lines. I wonder why Coverity didn't argue here. > >> > >>My guess is that we also don't check close() return value elsewhere. The > >>way I've seen Coverity work is that if most other occurences are > >>checked, then Coverity raises a flag is one is not. > > > >Yes I though so too. That is also the reason, why I didn't check the > >return value of close here. If we want to check it, we must change it > >everywhere where close() is used (Otherwise Coverity will probably > >complain). Do we want to check close() return values? If so I can post > >another patch related to close() only that will check it everywhere, but > >I think it is not necessary. > > > >New patch is attached. > > > >Thanks > >Michal > > Ack.
Pushed to master. _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
