From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] libxc: fix uninitialized variable in xc_cpuid_pv_policy() Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:57:58 +0100 Message-ID: <5596B106.7010301@citrix.com> References: <1435772232-39085-1-git-send-email-Jennifer.Herbert@citrix.com> <1435772232-39085-2-git-send-email-Jennifer.Herbert@citrix.com> <21910.42740.702016.879273@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1435937956.9447.165.camel@citrix.com> <21910.44668.137420.207924@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1435938633.9447.170.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1435938633.9447.170.camel@citrix.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 Campbell , Ian Jackson Cc: Jennifer Herbert , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, wei.liu2@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/07/15 16:50, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:47 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] libxc: fix uninitialized variable in xc_cpuid_pv_policy()"): >>> On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 16:15 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >>>> Unfortunately xc_cpuid_pv_policy doesn't return an error code. I >>>> think it needs to. So that's rather a yak. >>> I was about to say it's not one worth shaving, but actually although >>> this returns void it is static and has exactly one caller which can >>> return errors -- so it's a very easy yakk to shave it seems. >> I guess part of my view is that the point of having Coverity spot >> anomalies is to find broken code and fix it. >> >> To then look at the issues which we spot as a result of looking at the >> code, when prodded by Coverity, and decide to fix only half of the >> problem, is to waste the opportunity for improvement presented by >> Coverity. (Or to look at it another way it is a waste of the effort >> of setting up Coverity and then wading through the false positives.) > This is a good way to think of it, thanks. FWIW, I already have "all of cpuid handling everywhere" covered in the herd of yakks needing shaving for the feature levelling fixes (design doc already on the list). ~Andrew