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

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

On 01/24/2014 04:57 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/01/14 16:52, George Dunlap wrote:
>> 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
> Not really - Coverity uses the file extension to work out how to
> interpret the modelling file.  ".c" is correct here, and will cause
> smart text editors to apply proper syntax highlighting.
>
> Alternates are .cpp and .java, depending on the primary language of the
> project.

Yes, I assumed that *coverity* needs it to be a .c.  But it doesn't need 
to be a .c file in the xen tree -- the instructions could say, "Place 
the text below into a file named coverity_model.c".

  -George