[PATCH 10/14] Cleanup: check return value of ioctl()

[Dirk Hohndel]

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:31 AM, Jef Driesen <jef at 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 at 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 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.

/D