From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: Coverity complaints about Remus in xen-unstable Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:45:54 +0100 Message-ID: <542D8F52.7000908@citrix.com> References: <542bcdb5e7156_555012573206153a@scan.coverity.com.mail> <21548.7820.533849.721113@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <542C2D2E.3060007@citrix.com> <21549.7204.27881.660089@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XZkS2-0001DC-Hs for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 17:46:02 +0000 In-Reply-To: <21549.7204.27881.660089@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson , Andrew Cooper Cc: Lai Jiangshan , Wen Congyang , coverity@xenproject.org, Shriram Rajagopalan , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Yang Hongyang List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/10/14 10:34, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Is there a way to fix this in Coverity's modelling or should we report > it as a false positive ? I don't think this is a false positive -- coverity has correctly identified the variable as unused. Perhaps you should tag the issue as "Intentional"? Longer term, I think libxl should move away from its profusion of macros that declare local variables -- I think you nicely demonstrated that they are confusing and that it's easy to forgot what they actually do. David