From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Trivial <qemu-trivial@nongnu.org>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Qemu-block <qemu-block@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ide: coverity touchups
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:30:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A4C890.70402@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55A41474.8000004@redhat.com>
On 13/07/2015 21:41, John Snow wrote:
>>> >> s->ports should never exceed 32, but coverity doesn't know that.
>>> >> ncq_tfs->sector_count should also never exceed 64K.
>> >
>> > Personally I tend to mark that kind of thing as a false
>> > positive in the coverity UI and move on...
>> >
>> > -- PMM
>> >
> Either way; Paolo pinged me about the NCQ one so I figured I'd just do it.
Yeah, neither is particularly optimal. Every now and then (a couple
years, say) you do have to re-evaluate false positives, so it's better
to fix them if possible. On the other hand the code is uglier.
Let's ignore these in Coverity---with a triaging comment there about why
they are false positives.
Paolo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Trivial <qemu-trivial@nongnu.org>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Qemu-block <qemu-block@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ide: coverity touchups
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:30:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A4C890.70402@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55A41474.8000004@redhat.com>
On 13/07/2015 21:41, John Snow wrote:
>>> >> s->ports should never exceed 32, but coverity doesn't know that.
>>> >> ncq_tfs->sector_count should also never exceed 64K.
>> >
>> > Personally I tend to mark that kind of thing as a false
>> > positive in the coverity UI and move on...
>> >
>> > -- PMM
>> >
> Either way; Paolo pinged me about the NCQ one so I figured I'd just do it.
Yeah, neither is particularly optimal. Every now and then (a couple
years, say) you do have to re-evaluate false positives, so it's better
to fix them if possible. On the other hand the code is uglier.
Let's ignore these in Coverity---with a triaging comment there about why
they are false positives.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-14 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-13 19:26 [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] ide: coverity touchups John Snow
2015-07-13 19:26 ` [Qemu-devel] " John Snow
2015-07-13 19:40 ` [Qemu-trivial] " Peter Maydell
2015-07-13 19:40 ` Peter Maydell
2015-07-13 19:41 ` [Qemu-trivial] " John Snow
2015-07-13 19:41 ` John Snow
2015-07-14 8:30 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2015-07-14 8:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-07-14 15:00 ` [Qemu-trivial] " John Snow
2015-07-14 15:00 ` John Snow
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55A4C890.70402@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-trivial@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.