From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1ZEvbh-00071o-AY for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55070) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEvbg-00070U-1n for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEvbe-0002MU-Um for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEvbS-0002IP-4w; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:14 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 814362B9DDE; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:30:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.33] (ovpn-112-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.33]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6E8U9DC028681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:11 -0400 To: John Snow , Peter Maydell References: <1436815589-19194-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <55A41474.8000004@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55A4C890.70402@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:30:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55A41474.8000004@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Cc: QEMU Trivial , Michael Tokarev , QEMU Developers , Qemu-block Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ide: coverity touchups X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:30:28 -0000 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEvbb-0006zl-PH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEvbW-0002K9-2A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:30:23 -0400 References: <1436815589-19194-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <55A41474.8000004@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55A4C890.70402@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:30:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55A41474.8000004@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ide: coverity touchups List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: John Snow , Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Trivial , Michael Tokarev , QEMU Developers , Qemu-block 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