From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC xen: suppress Coverity warnings about
 atomic_read and atomic_set.
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:17:48 +0100
Message-ID: <5231CD0C.7000705@citrix.com>
References: <1378993643-13345-1-git-send-email-tim@xen.org>
	<5231E68E02000078000F2C72@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1378995243.10076.68.camel@kazak.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>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1VK7iV-00087X-Jk
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:17:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1378995243.10076.68.camel@kazak.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 Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

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