Unless I'm missing something subtle, this appears to be a false positive.
Coverity marked a few uses of ScopedLock with this error, but not all, which
seems curious.
-K
----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: scan-ad...@coverity.com
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:39:43 PM
> Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Apache-Qpid
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> CID 1040637: Missing unlock (LOCK)
>
> /qpidbuilds/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/amqp_0_10/Connection.cpp: 379 (
> lock)
> 376
> 377 void Connection::doIoCallbacks() {
> 378 if (!isOpen()) return; // Don't process IO callbacks until we
> are open.
> >>> "qpid::sys::ScopedLock<qpid::sys::Mutex>::ScopedLock(qpid::sys::Mutex &)"
> >>> locks "this->ioCallbackLock.mutex".
> 379 ScopedLock<Mutex> l(ioCallbackLock);
> 380 while (!ioCallbacks.empty()) {
> 381 boost::function0<void> cb = ioCallbacks.front();
> 382 ioCallbacks.pop();
> 383 ScopedUnlock<Mutex> ul(ioCallbackLock);
>
>
> /qpidbuilds/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/amqp_0_10/Connection.cpp: 386 (
> missing_unlock)
> 383 ScopedUnlock<Mutex> ul(ioCallbackLock);
> 384 cb(); // Lend the IO thread for management processing
> 385 }
> >>> CID 1040637: Missing unlock (LOCK)
> >>> Returning without unlocking "this->ioCallbackLock.mutex".
> 386 }
> 387
> 388 bool Connection::doOutput() {
> 389 try {
> 390 doIoCallbacks();
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, http://scan.coverity.com
>
> To unsubscribe from the email notification for new defects,
> http://scan5.coverity.com/cgi-bin/unsubscribe.py
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
