ospf6d: memcmp cleanup #10070
Merged
ospf6d: memcmp cleanup #10070
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As part of the check, it memcompares two structs ospf6_path. This struct has a pointer field nh_list which is allocated every time a new path is created, which means it can never be the same for two different paths. Therefore this check is always false and can be completely removed. Signed-off-by: Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com>
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDTest incomplete. See below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: IncompleteAddresssanitizer topotests part 4: Incomplete(check logs for details)Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4: No useful log foundSuccessful on other platforms/tests
|
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4: Failed (click for details)Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4: No useful log foundSuccessful on other platforms/tests
|
qlyoung
reviewed
Nov 15, 2021
| @@ -704,27 +704,6 @@ struct ospf6_route *ospf6_route_add(struct ospf6_route *route, | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if (old) { | |||
| /* if route does not actually change, return unchanged */ | |||
| if (ospf6_route_is_identical(old, route)) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than entirely remove this, shouldn't it now become a simple pointer comparison? If the comparison is always false for different struct instances as you say then we should still check if the instance is the same right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I thought about this, but it's not possible either. route is always a new object (lock is asserted to be 0), and old is always an existing object (lock is decremented).
|
@frrbot rereview |
|
Style please |
Using memcmp with complex structures like prefix or ospf6_ls_origin is not correct, because even two structures with same values in all fields may have different values in padding bytes and comparison will fail. Signed-off-by: Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com>
idryzhov
force-pushed
the
ospf6-memcmp-cleanup
branch
from
01d4fb7 to
66314e9
Compare
|
Force-pushed to fix style warnings. |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4: Failed (click for details)Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4: No useful log foundTopotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4: No useful log foundSuccessful on other platforms/tests
|
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDTest incomplete. See below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: IncompleteAddresssanitizer topotests part 4: Incomplete(check logs for details)Successful on other platforms/tests
|
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4: Failed (click for details)Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4: No useful log foundSuccessful on other platforms/tests
|
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULCongratulations, this patch passed basic tests Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-1602/ This is a comment from an automated CI system. |
|
@frrbot rereview |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Check individual commits.