[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC xen: suppress Coverity warnings about atomic_read and atomic_set.
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.09.13 at 15:47, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > RFC because I'm not sure what people think about scattering coverity > > annotations in the code. > > I personally dislike such tool specific annotations. What if someone > suggests a second tool to pass our code through? If there was > some standardization, that'd be a different thing... Could we handle this how we do different compilers: #ifdef COVERITY #define __false_cast_thing THE ANNOTATION #else... static inline void atomic_set(atomic_t *v, int i) { __false_cast_thing write_atomic(&v->counter, i); Although if the tools are not consistent about placement etc this won't help at all. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |