Re: [PATCH v5] coverity: Store the modelling file in the source tree.

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 01/23/2014 03:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/01/14 15:13, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 01/23/2014 02:28 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>>> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
>>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
>>> CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
>>> CC: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
>>> CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
>>> CC: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> Correct.  I believe internally Coverity compiles it (at least to an
> AST), but that is completely opaque to users of Scan.

Right; I have a hard time coming up with a compelling reason to wait for 
this one.

Release-acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>

The name of the file might be a bit confusing though, if people think it 
is supposed to be compliled... would it make sense maybe to call it 
".txt", and include some instructions at the top with a line that says 
"---- cut here 8< ---" or something?

  -George