[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/arm: Fix ARM build following c/s 11c397c
On 08/02/17 19:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/02/17 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:Hi Andrew, On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE() which is different to the definiton in smmu.c
Forgot this one s/definiton/definition/
The SMMU code included a scalar typecheck, which is worth keeping in the common case, given ACCESS_ONCE()'s restrictions. However, express the typecheck differently so as to avoid Coverity compliants about unuseds/compliants/complaint/In this case, it is multiple individual complains about unused individual variables, so "complaints" is scans perfectly well. An alternative would be "to avoid Coverity complaining about..." if you prefer?
Sorry I was flagging the typo "i" and "a" inverted and not the plural.
variables.OOI, the variable is marked as "__maybe_unused", so why Coverity would complaint?The entire purpose of Coverity is to second guess what the programmer actually wrote when it looks suspicious. As for this specific example, I believe that the annotation doesn't even survive into the GCC Abstract Syntax Tree, which means Coverity doesn't get to see it. Even if it does, the complaint of "This variable is unused - why do you need it?" is still valid.
Oh, thank you for the explanation. Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our