From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C37C06510 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BE032184B for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:27:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6BE032184B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:56114 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hiNUY-0006ri-V9 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:26:58 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48989) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hiLfq-0007l8-RF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:30:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hiLfp-0000lM-SV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:30:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43610) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hiLfp-0000kP-MB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 12:30:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2CC4316290B; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x1.home (ovpn-116-83.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.83]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43A73737; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:30:25 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: Peter Maydell Message-ID: <20190702103025.72258b47@x1.home> In-Reply-To: References: <156046151566.26543.17274661862206856605.stgit@gimli.home> <156046164094.26543.10016703921328261988.stgit@gimli.home> <63a37329-f892-ed5f-4929-e40dac25b64d@redhat.com> <20190702095546.11842fec@x1.home> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.41]); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:30:28 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/3] vfio/common: Introduce vfio_set_irq_signaling helper X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Auger Eric , QEMU Developers Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:58:02 +0100 Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 16:56, Alex Williamson wrote: > > When we're emulating writes to the MSI-X vector table we have no > > failure path up to the guest. Real hardware cannot fail to enable a > > vector that's available in hardware, thus we can either log the issue, > > ignore the issue, or fault. I guess Coverity is simply noting that > > other cases are tested while this is not, therefore we should either > > explicitly ignore the return value with a cast to void or take this as > > an opportunity to log the fault, which might be useful in debugging a > > device that isn't working properly. Thanks, > > Yeah, Coverity's check here is purely a heuristic ("did we seem > to check returns from this function in other places?") so it's > wrong sometimes. If you want me to mark this as a false positive > in the coverity UI I can do that. TBH, it seems like a good nag to log it properly. Eric, do you mind posting a fix to do that? Thanks, Alex