Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC xen: suppress Coverity warnings about atomic_read and atomic_set.

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 15:14 +0100 on 12 Sep (1378998843), Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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.

The coverity system seems to be to add a comment immediately above the
code in question, which seems like it wouldn't play well with macro
trickery.

I would prefer, if we can, to either fix this in configuration or get
coverity fixed to understand the switch(sizeof) trick.  And in the
meantime we can carry on flagging these false positives by hand. 

Tim.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel