Re: [PATCH] RFC xen: suppress Coverity warnings about atomic_read and atomic_set.

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 12/09/13 15:14, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 12.09.13 at 15:47, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
>>> RFC because I'm not sure what people think about scattering coverity
>>> annotations in the code.
>> I personally dislike such tool specific annotations. What if someone
>> suggests a second tool to pass our code through? If there was
>> some standardization, that'd be a different thing...
> Could we handle this how we do different compilers:
>
> #ifdef COVERITY
> #define __false_cast_thing THE ANNOTATION
> #else...
>
> static inline void atomic_set(atomic_t *v, int i)
> {
>     __false_cast_thing
>     write_atomic(&v->counter, i);
>
> Although if the tools are not consistent about placement etc this won't
> help at all.

The annotations are just comments, and as there is an implication of
being able to annotate next to macro declarations, I doubt this would
have the intended effect.

I was wondering whether we can use the "model" file to specify this
annotation next to a modelled version of atomic_set() ?  That way, all
Coverity gubbins would be in a single file unreferenced by anything else.

~Andrew