On 10/21/2014 02:29 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
--- src/shared/macro.h | 2 +- src/shared/ring.c | 7 ++++--- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/shared/macro.h b/src/shared/macro.h index 9ee332c..372475b 100644 --- a/src/shared/macro.h +++ b/src/shared/macro.h @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ static inline size_t IOVEC_INCREMENT(struct iovec *i, unsigned n, size_t k) { for (j = 0; j < n; j++) { size_t sub; - if (_unlikely_(k <= 0)) + if (_unlikely_(k == 0))I think cppcheck is really confused here... I really prefer the <= checks in this case, even if the type would never allow negative values, and thus == checks would suffice. Why? simply because this code makes the logic independent of the precise type, it will always work correctly.
Oh, you are right. This should probably be left as is.
+++ b/src/shared/ring.c @@ -83,8 +83,6 @@ size_t ring_peek(Ring *r, struct iovec *vec) { * return the number of bytes copied. */ size_t ring_copy(Ring *r, void *buf, size_t size) { - size_t l; - assert(r); assert(buf); @@ -92,6 +90,8 @@ size_t ring_copy(Ring *r, void *buf, size_t size) { size = r->used; if (size > 0) { + size_t l; + l = r->size - r->start; if (size <= l) { memcpy(buf, &r->buf[r->start], size); @@ -110,7 +110,6 @@ size_t ring_copy(Ring *r, void *buf, size_t size) { */ static int ring_resize(Ring *r, size_t nsize) { uint8_t *buf; - size_t l; assert(r); assert(nsize > 0); @@ -120,6 +119,8 @@ static int ring_resize(Ring *r, size_t nsize) { return -ENOMEM; if (r->used > 0) { + size_t l; + l = r->size - r->start; if (r->used <= l) { memcpy(buf, &r->buf[r->start], r->used);i you rebase and split out the ring.c changes I'll commit them, though they don't really matter much....
Nevermind, let's leave it too. -- Best Regards, Boris Egorov _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
