[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PULL 22/27] hw/xen: Add emulated implementation of XenStore operations
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 19:22, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-04-11 at 19:07 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > > > > +static void xs_be_unwatch(struct qemu_xs_handle *h, struct > > > qemu_xs_watch *w) > > > +{ > > > + xs_impl_unwatch(h->impl, DOMID_QEMU, w->path, NULL, > > > xs_be_watch_cb, w); > > > > Coverity points out that this is the only call to xs_impl_unwatch() > > where we don't check the return value. Is there some useful way > > we can report the error, or is it a "we're closing everything down > > anyway, no way to report anything" situation? (This particular > > Coverity heuristic is quite prone to false positives, so if that's > > the way it is I'll just mark it as a f-p in the coverity UI.) > > This is because the Xen libxenstore API doesn't return an error, and > this is the ops function which emulates that same API. I suppose we > could explicitly cast to void with a comment to that effect, to avoid > having it linger in Coverity? I think that's sufficient to make > Coverity shut up, isn't it? I've just marked it a false-positive in the UI. Coverity's generally good at not resurfacing old false-positives, so don't bother changing the code unless you think it would improve clarity for a human reader. thanks -- PMM
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |