On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:46:30PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/26/13 2:40 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:20:30PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> The coverity runs had a false positive complaining that save_ptr
> >> is uninitialized in the call to strtok_r.
> >>
> >> We could initialize it, but Zach points out that just using
> >> strsep is a lot simpler if there's only one delimiter,
> >> so just switch to that.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sand...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> V2: Remove accidentally-added debug printfs, thanks Geoffredo!
> >>
> >> diff --git a/cmds-balance.c b/cmds-balance.c
> >> index b671e1d..cfbb8eb 100644
> >> --- a/cmds-balance.c
> >> +++ b/cmds-balance.c
> >> @@ -67,11 +67,8 @@ static int parse_one_profile(const char *profile, u64
> >> *flags)
> >> static int parse_profiles(char *profiles, u64 *flags)
> >> {
> >> char *this_char;
> >> - char *save_ptr;
> >>
> >> - for (this_char = strtok_r(profiles, "|", &save_ptr);
> >> - this_char != NULL;
> >> - this_char = strtok_r(NULL, "|", &save_ptr)) {
> >> + while ((this_char = strsep(&profiles, "|"))) {
> >> if (parse_one_profile(this_char, flags))
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> @@ -136,14 +133,11 @@ static int parse_filters(char *filters, struct
> >> btrfs_balance_args *args)
> >> {
> >> char *this_char;
> >> char *value;
> >> - char *save_ptr;
> >>
> >> if (!filters)
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> - for (this_char = strtok_r(filters, ",", &save_ptr);
> >> - this_char != NULL;
> >> - this_char = strtok_r(NULL, ",", &save_ptr)) {
> >> + while ((this_char = strsep(&filters , ","))) {
> >
> > ^^^ whitespace
> >
> >
> > One of the differences between strtok() and strsep() is that the former
> > allows multiple delimiters between two tokens. With strsep(), this
> >
> > btrfs balance -dfoo1=bar1,,,foo2=bar2 <mnt>
> >
> > fails with error, whereas with strtok() it passes. I don't have a
> > strong opinion here (this has been loosely modeled on the way mount(8)
> > handles -o options), but might it be better to just initialize save_ptr?
> > (And yes, I know that strsep() is better ;))
>
> I don't really care much either way, TBH. Initializing it seems a little
> bit magic, but with a comment as to why, it'd be fine. If you did it this
> way intentionally to allow the above format, and changing it would break
> expectations, then I'll happily just initialize save_ptr.
Yeah, although I doubt anybody would notice, it's probably better to
keep the old behaviour.
>
> (And, I realize that lots of these changes are pedantic and seemingly
> pointless, but we've gotten the static checker errors down from over 100
> to under 30 and dropping; the more noise we remove the more likely we are
> to pay attention to the output and catch actual errors. At least that's
> my feeling; if people think this is getting to be pointless churn, I'm
> ok with that, too).
Not at all. Btrfs-progs had rarely seen any cleanups, with you and Zach
patching it up and David's integration work it has gotten a whole new
life ;) BTW, huge thanks for the kernel-style build output, I am
forever grateful..
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
