From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50070)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1WQMRb-0001YW-Gb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:46:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1WQMRP-0004ke-Hz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:46:31 -0400
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5329F406.7040606@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:46:14 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1395247965-13889-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<5329D4B7.4090602@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5329D4B7.4090602@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] scripts: add sample model file for
 Coverity Scan
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com

Il 19/03/2014 18:32, Eric Blake ha scritto:
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Red Hat, Inc.
>> + *
>> + * Authors:
>> + *  Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> + *  Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>> + *
>> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or, at your
>> + * option, any later version.  See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
>
> Aren't the license and authors blurbs usually in the other order?

Not in the sample I copied from (migration.c).

>
>> +#define assert(x) if (!(x)) __coverity_panic__();
>
> Will this break any 'if () assert(); else {}' blocks?  Obviously, such
> blocks already violate coding convention, but you might as well make
> this definition safe to use for older code.

Ok.

>> +
>> +static void __write(uint8_t *buf, int len)
>
> Will the fact that you used 'int len' instead of 'size_t' bite us on 32-
> vs. 64-bit?  Same for __read.

Yeah, I copied this from address_space_rw.  I'll change to ssize_t to 
catch negative values.

>
>> +void *
>> +g_malloc0 (size_t n_bytes)
>> +{
>> +    void *mem;
>> +    __coverity_negative_sink__((ssize_t) n_bytes);
>> +    mem = calloc(1, n_bytes == 0 ? 1 : n_bytes);
>> +    if (!mem) __coverity_panic__ ();
>
> Is it worth being consistent on spacing before (?

Yes.

>> +void g_free (void *mem)
>> +{
>> +    if (mem) {
>> +        free(mem);
>> +    }
>
> Doesn't coverity already know that free(NULL) is a no-op, without you
> having to repeat it?

This part came from Markus. :)

Paolo