[inline]
On Apr 7, 2016, at 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
> generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
> the project "open-mpi/ompi".
>
> The branch, master has been updated
> via 92290b94e0584271d6459a6ab5923a04125e23be (commit)
> from 7cdf50533cf940258072f70231a4a456fa73d2f8 (commit)
>
> Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
> not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
> revisions in full, below.
>
> - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/commit/92290b94e0584271d6459a6ab5923a04125e23be
>
> commit 92290b94e0584271d6459a6ab5923a04125e23be
> Author: Thananon Patinyasakdikul <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Apr 6 14:26:04 2016 -0400
>
> Fixed Coverity reports 1358014-1358018 (DEADCODE and CHECK_RETURN)
>
> diff --git a/ompi/mca/pml/ob1/pml_ob1_recvreq.c
> b/ompi/mca/pml/ob1/pml_ob1_recvreq.c
> index 9d1d402..a912bc3 100644
> --- a/ompi/mca/pml/ob1/pml_ob1_recvreq.c
> +++ b/ompi/mca/pml/ob1/pml_ob1_recvreq.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int mca_pml_ob1_recv_request_cancel(struct
> ompi_request_t* ompi_request,
> /* The rest should be protected behind the match logic lock */
> OB1_MATCHING_LOCK(&ob1_comm->matching_lock);
> if( true == request->req_match_received ) { /* way to late to cancel this
> one */
> - OPAL_THREAD_UNLOCK(&ob1_comm->matching_lock);
> + OB1_MATCHING_LOCK(&ob1_comm->matching_lock);
I've only taken a cursory look, but this looks very wrong to me. Shouldn't you
be using the "OB1_MATCHING_UNLOCK" macro instead? Doubly locking the lock will
almost certainly lead to sadness.
> assert( OMPI_ANY_TAG != ompi_request->req_status.MPI_TAG ); /* not
> matched isn't it */
> return OMPI_SUCCESS;
> }
> diff --git a/opal/mca/btl/tcp/btl_tcp.h b/opal/mca/btl/tcp/btl_tcp.h
> index f2c8917..7e9d726 100644
> --- a/opal/mca/btl/tcp/btl_tcp.h
> +++ b/opal/mca/btl/tcp/btl_tcp.h
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ extern int mca_btl_tcp_progress_thread_trigger;
> do { \
> if(0 < mca_btl_tcp_progress_thread_trigger) { \
> opal_event_t* _event = (opal_event_t*)(event); \
> - opal_fd_write( mca_btl_tcp_pipe_to_progress[1],
> sizeof(opal_event_t*), \
> + (void) opal_fd_write( mca_btl_tcp_pipe_to_progress[1],
> sizeof(opal_event_t*), \
Seems better to capture the return value and at least put an assert() on it if
it fails, though admittedly things are very screwed up if you overrun the pipe.
-Dave
