On 5/10/2016 11:11 AM, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote: > Fix issue reported by Coverity. > Coverity ID 13338 > > A function call that seems to have an intended effect has no actual effect > on the logic of the program. > > In rte_sched_port_free: A function is called that is only useful for its > return value, and this value is ignored. > > Fixes: de3cfa2c9823 ("sched: initial import") > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod at intel.com> > --- > lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c b/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c > index 1609ea8..9b962a6 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c > +++ b/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c > @@ -749,7 +749,6 @@ rte_sched_port_free(struct rte_sched_port *port) > rte_pktmbuf_free(mbufs[i]); > } > > - rte_bitmap_free(port->bmp); > rte_free(port); > } > >
rte_bitmap_free() just does NULL check on port->bmp. I thought intention can be to free the "bmp", but this isn't the case: port->bmp is actually port->bmp_array, port->bmp_array points somewhere within port->memory, port->memory (zero sized array) allocated and freed with "port" pointer. So for this patch: Acked-by: "Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>" But as follow up: rte_bitmap_free() seems only used here, and it does nothing more than NULL check, with a misleading name, should we remove this function? Regards, ferruh