From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Check negative value returned by cpufreq_table_find_index_dl() Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:10:30 +0530 Message-ID: <20180212104030.GV28462@vireshk-i7> References: <1518430876-24464-1-git-send-email-shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180212102900.GU28462@vireshk-i7> <14e2fe70-7628-4377-664d-3c4b0071e08d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14e2fe70-7628-4377-664d-3c4b0071e08d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shilpasri G Bhat Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 12-02-18, 16:03, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote: > I agree too. There is no way we can get -1 with initialized cpu frequency table. > We don't initialize powernv-cpufreq if we don't have valid CPU frequency > entries. Is there any other way to suppress the Coverity tool warning apart from > ignoring it? So IIUC, this warning is generated by an external tool after static analysis of the code ? If yes, then just ignore the warning. We shouldn't try fixing the kernel because a tool isn't smart enough to catch intentional ignorance of the return value here. -- viresh