On 2018-01-03 16:39, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:31 AM, Jef Driesen jef@libdivecomputer.org wrote:
On 29-12-17 01:35, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
It's checked for all the other invocations... Coverity CID 207796 Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel dirk@hohndel.org
src/serial_posix.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/serial_posix.c b/src/serial_posix.c index 1698df8159b3..9a9373e32fb9 100644 --- a/src/serial_posix.c +++ b/src/serial_posix.c @@ -262,7 +262,11 @@ dc_serial_close (dc_iostream_t *abstract) #ifndef ENABLE_PTY // Disable exclusive access mode.
- ioctl (device->fd, TIOCNXCL, NULL);
- if (ioctl (device->fd, TIOCNXCL, NULL)) {
int errcode = errno;SYSERROR (abstract->context, errcode);dc_status_set_error(&status, syserror (errcode));- }
#endif
I didn't check this one, because it's not the most useful one. But it also doesn't really hurt, so I'm fine with it either way.
Note that the error code returned by the dc_serial_close() function is mainly for informative purposes anyway. The caller can't really do much with it other then reporting it.
I'm fine either way - we can always mark this as intentional in Coverity (btw, you haven't asked for access to the scan reports - can you see the reports without me giving you access after all?)
I haven't checked yet, but I certainly will because I'm sure it's useful to see what coverity actually reports for all these issues. But I need to leave in a few minutes, and wanted to send my comments as soon as possible :-)
I simply added these checks because in general libdivecomputer is extremely consistent and conservative with error checking, so this did seem like an unintentional omission to me.
It causes no harm, so let's just add the check.
Jef