From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] libxc: fix uninitialized variable in
 xc_cpuid_pv_policy()
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:50:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1435938633.9447.170.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1435772232-39085-1-git-send-email-Jennifer.Herbert@citrix.com>
	<1435772232-39085-2-git-send-email-Jennifer.Herbert@citrix.com>
	<21910.42740.702016.879273@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1435937956.9447.165.camel@citrix.com>
	<21910.44668.137420.207924@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <21910.44668.137420.207924@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, Jennifer Herbert <Jennifer.Herbert@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:47 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] libxc: fix uninitialized variable in xc_cpuid_pv_policy()"):
> > On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:15 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Unfortunately xc_cpuid_pv_policy doesn't return an error code.  I
> > > think it needs to.  So that's rather a yak.
> > 
> > I was about to say it's not one worth shaving, but actually although
> > this returns void it is static and has exactly one caller which can
> > return errors -- so it's a very easy yakk to shave it seems.
> 
> I guess part of my view is that the point of having Coverity spot
> anomalies is to find broken code and fix it.
> 
> To then look at the issues which we spot as a result of looking at the
> code, when prodded by Coverity, and decide to fix only half of the
> problem, is to waste the opportunity for improvement presented by
> Coverity.  (Or to look at it another way it is a waste of the effort
> of setting up Coverity and then wading through the false positives.)

This is a good way to think of it, thanks.

Ian.