Skip to content

tests: msgq: Fix uncheck return value of coverity scan #31788

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
nashif merged 1 commit into from
Feb 2, 2021
Merged

tests: msgq: Fix uncheck return value of coverity scan #31788

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 6 additions & 2 deletions tests/kernel/msgq/msgq_api/src/test_msgq_contexts.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -404,8 +404,11 @@ void test_msgq_empty(void)
*/
ret = k_msgq_cleanup(&msgq1);
zassert_equal(ret, -EBUSY, NULL);

/* put a message to wake that getting thread */
k_msgq_put(&msgq1, &data[0], K_NO_WAIT);
ret = k_msgq_put(&msgq1, &data[0], K_NO_WAIT);
zassert_equal(ret, 0, NULL);

k_thread_abort(tid);
}

Expand All @@ -429,8 +432,9 @@ void test_msgq_full(void)
ret = k_sem_init(&end_sema, 0, 1);
zassert_equal(ret, 0, NULL);

ret = k_msgq_put(&msgq1, &data[0], K_NO_WAIT);
zassert_equal(ret, 0, NULL);
Copy link
Contributor

@jenmwms jenmwms Feb 2, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please help me understand? This test is put message to a full queue, and should get a -ENOMSG if a timeout is set to K_NO_WAIT (from description).

We init'd the msgq with size 1, so these lines here are to fill that buffer. And the assert checks that the message was sent. Then the next part (k_thread_create) is what executes our test scenario of a thread putting more data on a full queue. Is my understanding correct, or close?

If so, how do we confirm the test scenario was handled properly? Would we not need a zassert_equal(ret, -ENOMSG, NULL)?

Copy link
Contributor

@jenmwms jenmwms Feb 2, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Considering this PR is to fix the unchecked return value, my clarification above should not block this PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@enjiamai enjiamai Feb 2, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jenmwms thanks for your review and approval, this is indeed to fix the coverity issue.

When it first call k_msgq_put (see line 435), it won't get a -ENOMSG because it is still not empty, (msgq->used == 0, msgq->max_msgs==1 , as long as used < max, it will return 0. see "kernel/msg_q.c" line 126, 148 please.

And your understanding is correct. If we keep calling k_msgq_put again with K_NO_WAIT, we will get -ENOMSG. like you can see in the created thread (line 231).

Hope this answer your question, thanks!


k_msgq_put(&msgq1, &data[0], K_NO_WAIT);
k_tid_t tid = k_thread_create(&tdata2, tstack2, STACK_SIZE,
put_full_entry, &msgq1, NULL,
NULL, pri, 0, K_NO_WAIT);
Expand Down