[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] vhost coverity issue fixes

[Yuanhan Liu]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:58 AM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie at intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> > <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/3] vhost coverity issue fixes
> > 
> > This is a small series fixes 3 coverity issues.
> > 
> > John, I'm wondering maybe maybe we could add the next-net and next-virtio
> > tree into the coverity test as well? So that we could catch those errors
> > as earlier as possible, say, at least before they got merged into
> > mainline.
> 
> Hi Yuanhan,
> 
> Good suggestion. I can do that.

John, Great!

> Are there any additional configs that should
> be enabled? Currently the check runs with:
> 
>     CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_PCAP=y
>     CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_QAT=y
>     CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AESNI_MB=y
>     CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_AESNI_GCM=y
>     CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_SNOW3G=y

Non of them are related to vhost/virtio, thus we may don't need them
for next-virtio tree. And I just think of one that should be enabled:

	CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_VHOST_NUMA=y

OTOH, I'm wondering is it worth to enable those debug options, to cover
more codes?

One more question: will it cover all branches? I have 2 branches there,
master and for-testing. It would be great if the coverity test can cover
the two branches. However, it does not matter at all if it just covers
one branch only: master.

Thanks.

	--yliu