From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] coverity: Store the modelling file in the source tree. Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:13:47 +0000 Message-ID: <52E131AB.7020603@eu.citrix.com> References: <1390487303-31765-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1390487303-31765-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper , Xen-devel Cc: Ian Jackson , Tim Deegan , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/23/2014 02:28 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper > CC: Keir Fraser > CC: Jan Beulich > CC: Tim Deegan > CC: Ian Campbell > CC: Ian Jackson > CC: George Dunlap > > --- > > George: > This is just documentation, and it would be nice to include it as part of > the 4.4 release. > --- > misc/coverity_model.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 misc/coverity_model.c > > diff --git a/misc/coverity_model.c b/misc/coverity_model.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..418d25e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/misc/coverity_model.c > @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ > +/* Coverity Scan model > + * > + * This is a modelling file for Coverity Scan. Modelling helps to avoid false > + * positives. > + * > + * - A model file can't import any header files. > + * - Therefore only some built-in primitives like int, char and void are > + * available but not NULL etc. > + * - Mode-ling doesn't need full structs and typedefs. Rudimentary structs > + * and similar types are sufficient. > + * - An uninitialized local pointer is not an error. It signifies that the > + * variable could be either NULL or have some data. > + * > + * Coverity Scan doesn't pick up modifications automatically. The model file > + * must be uploaded by an admin in the analysis. So this file isn't compiled; it's manually uploaded as part of the coverity scanning process; and could be provided out-of-band, but it's just convenient to put it in the tree, particularly if any of these things should change as things go forward. (Hence comparing it to documentation.) Is that right? -George